burden of proof

(redirected from Preponderance of the evidence)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia.
Related to Preponderance of the evidence: Clear and convincing evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Burden of Proof

The obligations one party must meet to prove a fact in court. The party holding the burden of proof in a case must back each of his/her assertions with evidence for them to be legally acceptable. In a criminal case, the burden of proof rests with the prosecutor; in a civil case, it resides with the plaintiff. See also: Beyond a reasonable doubt, Preponderance of evidence.

burden of proof

In court, the responsibility to come forward with credible evidence that a thing happened or did not happen.Normally,the party who complains about a wrongdoing has the burden of proof. In some circumstances, primarily under federal laws related to discrimination, the aggrieved party need only make an allegation of wrongful behavior and the defendant has the burden of proof that his or her behavior was reasonable under the circumstances.The burden of proof may be set at different levels for various types of litigation. For example:

• When contesting a property tax valuation, the owner must generally prove that the assessment was manifestly excessive, clearly erroneous, or confiscatory. This burden of proof is very high, much more than required to show the assessment was simply inaccurate.

• Housing discrimination cases involve a three-step process that moves the burden of proof back and forth. Under what is called the McDonnell Douglas test, plaintiffs have the burden of showing they are a member of a protected minority; they applied for and were qualified to rent or purchase property; and they were rejected and the housing or rental opportunity remained available afterward. That creates a presumption of discrimination, which shifts the burden to the defendants to prove they had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions. If successful, the burden shifts back to the plaintiffs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning, “more likely than not”) that the offered reason was a pretext and there really was a discriminatory purpose.

References in periodicals archive ?
standard" between preponderance of the evidence and reasonable
Russell has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that [the complainant] consented to the sexual act, then the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant's consent was not voluntary.
Ohio Jurisprudence defines "clear and convincing evidence" to mean that measure or degree of proof that "is more than a mere preponderance of the evidence but less than the certainty required by the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard applied in criminal cases .
117) The narrow issue for the Court to decide was whether Batson allowed California to require the objecting party to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the peremptory challenge, if unexplained, was based on an unconstitutional group bias.
19) The Indiana Supreme Court's final error was in its application of Strickland's reasonable probability standard to the death penalty phase, by failing to state that the petitioner was not required to prove prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.
In fact the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence suggested that pain would be more intense for the baby in her late second trimester than for a similarly aged premature newborn.
Ultimately, Powers denied all of Quintana's allegations, and a judge ordered that the temporary restraining order be vacated "not just by the preponderance of the evidence, but by the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Judges and juries must listen to the scientific arguments and then decide which side bears the preponderance of the evidence.
In the matter of alleged physical abuse, the preponderance of the evidence is that abuse did occur and that it was systematic," writes OPS investigator Michael Goldston in his 1990 report.
Tobacco, deciding that a preponderance of the evidence did not show that Sean's six-year, heavy use of Copenhagen had caused his tongue cancer.
Safdie failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his right to use the CFP([R]) certification marks should not be suspended during the pendency of CFP Board's investigation.