Standards of proof
Standards of proof are essential legal benchmarks that determine the level of evidence required to prevail in a court case. There are three primary standards: two applicable to civil cases and one for criminal cases. In most civil cases, the standard is known as "preponderance of the evidence," where one party must show that their claims are more likely true than not. For certain civil matters, particularly those involving fraud, a higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence" is required, necessitating that the claims be highly probable. These civil standards have historical roots in English common law, reflecting distinctions between law and equity courts. In contrast, criminal cases impose a much stricter requirement known as "beyond a reasonable doubt." This standard ensures that the government must convincingly demonstrate the defendant's guilt, providing robust protections for individuals against wrongful conviction. The adoption of these standards is crucial for maintaining fairness in legal proceedings and instilling public confidence in the justice system.
On this Page
Standards of proof
Definition: Rules determining how much and what sort of evidence is enough to win cases in courts of law
Significance: Without well-established and uniformly applied standards of proof, no one would be assured of a fair trial.
There are three separate standards of proof, two for “civil” (noncriminal) cases and another for criminal cases. In most civil cases, the standard is generally said to require proving a case “by a preponderance of the evidence.” This means convincing the court that one side’s position is more likely true than the other side’s position. In these cases, the same standard applies to both sides.
In some civil cases, such as those involving fraud, the party bringing the lawsuit is required to prove a case by providing “clear and convincing evidence.” Under this standard, the court must be persuaded that the accusation or claim is highly probable, not merely more likely true than not true.
These civil standards are basically “judge-made”; that is, they were developed as part of the English common law, and those traditions have been followed by American courts. The distinction between the two types of civil cases has its origin in ancient English law, where there were two court systems, one of law and one of “equity.” Cases heard in law courts were decided under the “preponderance” standard, while those heard in courts of equity were decided under the “clear and convincing” standard.
Although most modern American court systems have only courts of law, the ancient distinction still remains. Sometimes the standard to be applied is included in the law the court is asked to enforce; where the statute does not say, however, the courts resort to the common-law tradition and to their understanding of the legislature’s purposes in passing the law.
In a criminal case, the party bringing the case is the government, which is usually far more powerful and with much less to lose than the other side. A much higher standard of proof is applied to the government: Before it can win, it must prove its position “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That means the accused person cannot be found guilty unless the court is convinced that the government has definitely proved every necessary part of its case, so that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant should be convicted. This standard has long been followed in both England and the United States, and it has been expressly required in American criminal cases since 1970, when the U.S. Supreme Court formally adopted that language in In re Winship (1970).
Bibliography
ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: The Prosecution Function. 3d. ed. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, 1992.
Reid, Sue Titus. Criminal Justice. 6th ed. Cincinnati: Atomic Dog Publishing, 2001.
Samaha, J. Criminal Law. 8th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2004.