Burden of Proof | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
meet the burden of proof - Translation to Spanish, pronunciation, and forum discussions. Burden of proof definition is - the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge. the opinion of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback. See More. The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of a party in a trial to produce the When a party bearing the burden of proof meets its burden, the burden of proof switches to 1 Definition; 2 Standard of proof in the United States The term "burden of proof" is used to mean two kinds of burdens: The burden of.
The officer must be prepared to establish that criminal activity was a logical explanation for what he perceived. The requirement serves to prevent officers from stopping individuals based merely on hunches or unfounded suspicions. The purpose of the stop and detention is to investigate to the extent necessary to confirm or dispel the original suspicion.
If the initial confrontation with the person stopped dispels suspicion of criminal activity the officer must end the detention and allow the person to go about his or her business. If the investigation confirms the officer's initial suspicion or reveals evidence that would justify continued detention the officer may require the person detained to remain at the scene until further investigation is complete.
Reasonable to believe[ edit ] In Arizona v. Gantthe United States Supreme Court defined a new standard, that of "reasonable to believe.
Burden of proof (philosophy)
The Court overruled New York v. Belton and concluded that police officers are allowed to go back and search a vehicle incident to a suspect's arrest only where it is "reasonable to believe" that there is more evidence in the vehicle of the crime for which the suspect was arrested. There is still an ongoing debate as to the exact meaning of this phrase. Some courts have said it should be a new standard while others have equated it with the "reasonable suspicion" of the Terry stop.
Most courts have agreed it is somewhere less than probable cause. Probable cause Probable cause is a relatively low standard of proof, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is warranted.
It is also used by grand juries to determine whether to issue an indictment. In the civil context, this standard is often used where plaintiffs are seeking a prejudgement remedy. In the criminal context, the U. Supreme Court in United States v. Courts vary when determining what constitutes a "fair probability": Consider the following three interactions: Some credible evidence[ edit ] One of the least reliable standards of proof, this assessment is often used in administrative law, and often in Child Protective Services CPS proceedings in some states.
The "some credible evidence" standard is used as a legal placeholder to bring some controversy before a trier of fact, and into a legal process. It is on the order of the factual standard of proof needed to achieve a finding of "probable cause" used in ex parte threshold determinations needed before a court will issue a search warrant. It is a lower standard of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
The standard does not require the fact-finder to weigh conflicting evidence, and merely requires the investigator or prosecutor to present the bare minimum of material credible evidence to support the allegations against the subject, or in support of the allegation; see Valmonte v.
In some Federal Appellate Circuit Courts, such as the Second Circuit, the "some credible evidence" standard has been found constitutionally insufficient to protect liberty interests of the parties in controversy at CPS hearings. Substantial evidence[ edit ] In some appeals from decisions of administrative agenciesthe courts apply a "substantial evidence" standard of review of the agency's factual findings.
In the United States, for example, if a Social Security Disability Insurance claimant is found "not disabled" and, therefore, ineligible for benefits by an Administrative Law Judge ALJ and the claimant appeals, both the Appeals Council the body within the Social Security Administration that hears appeals from decisions of ALJs and the Federal courts which, in this type of case, will normally hear an appeal only after the claimant has exhausted all administrative remedies will look to see whether the administrative law judge's decision was supported by "substantial evidence" or not.
Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The trier of fact's decision cannot be baseless. It is also the burden of proof of which the defendant must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court. In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt as they do in criminal court.
The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.
Burden Of Proof | Definition of Burden Of Proof by Merriam-Webster
The standard is satisfied if there is greater than fifty percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denningin Miller v. Minister of Pensions,  described it simply as "more probable than not.
In most US states, the employer must prove this case with a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof used for immunity from prosecution under Florida's controversial stand-your-ground law. The defense must present its evidence in a pre-trial hearing, show that the statutory prerequisites have been met, and then request that the court grant a motion for declaration of immunity. The judge must then decide from the preponderance of the evidence whether to grant immunity.
Clear and convincing evidence[ edit ] Clear and convincing evidence is a higher level of burden of persuasion than "preponderance of the evidence". It is employed intra-adjudicatively in administrative court determinations, as well as in civil and certain criminal procedure in the United States.
For example, a prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief from capital punishment must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality.
In this standard, a greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions, which only requires that the facts as a threshold be more likely than not to prove the issue for which they are asserted.
This standard is also known as "clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence"; "clear, cognizant, and convincing evidence"; and "clear, unequivocal, satisfactory, and convincing evidence", and is applied in cases or situations involving an equitable remedy or where a presumptive civil liberty interest exists. Beyond reasonable doubt[ edit ] Main article: Reasonable doubt This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings and when considering aggravating circumstances in criminal proceedings.
It has been described, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of one's own affairs.
However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty. If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty which precludes the existence of any reasonable alternatives. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence presented. The main reason that this high level of proof is demanded in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which monetary damages are the common remedy.
Another noncriminal instance in which proof beyond a reasonable doubt is applied is LPS conservatorship.
There are others which are defined in statutes, such as those relating to police powers. The criminal standard was formerly described as "beyond reasonable doubt". That standard remains, and the words commonly used, though the Judicial Studies Board guidance is that juries might be assisted by being told that to convict they must be persuaded "so that you are sure".
The civil standard is 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not". The civil standard is also used in criminal trials in relation to those defences which must be proven by the defendant for example, the statutory defence to drunk in charge that there was no likelihood of the accused driving while still over the alcohol limit .
What is BURDEN OF PROOF? definition of BURDEN OF PROOF (Black's Law Dictionary)
However, where the law does not stipulate a reverse burden of proof, the defendant need only raise the issue and it is then for the prosecution to negate the defence to the criminal standard in the usual way for example, that of self-defence . Prior to the decision of the House of Lords in Re B A Child  UKHL 35  there had been some confusion — even at the Court of Appeal — as to whether there was some intermediate standard, described as the 'heightened standard'.
The House of Lords found that there was not. As the above description of the American system shows, anxiety by judges to make decisions on very serious matters on the basis of the balance of probabilities had led to a departure from the common law principles of just two standards.
Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which in this context is: An example is in an American criminal casewhere there is a presumption of innocence by the defendant.
Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party. Null hypothesis In inferential statisticsthe null hypothesis is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.
The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. The concept of a null hypothesis is used differently in two approaches to statistical inference.
In the significance testing approach of Ronald Fishera null hypothesis is rejected if the observed data are significantly unlikely to have occurred if the null hypothesis were true. In this case the null hypothesis is rejected and an alternative hypothesis is accepted in its place.
If the data are consistent with the null hypothesis, then the null hypothesis is not rejected. In neither case is the null hypothesis or its alternative proven; the null hypothesis is tested with data and a decision is made based on how likely or unlikely the data are. This is analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocencein which a suspect or defendant is assumed to be innocent null is not rejected until proven guilty null is rejected beyond a reasonable doubt to a statistically significant degree.
In the hypothesis testing approach of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearsona null hypothesis is contrasted with an alternative hypothesis and the two hypotheses are distinguished on the basis of data, with certain error rates.
Proponents of each approach criticize the other approach. Nowadays, though, a hybrid approach is widely practiced and presented in textbooks.
The hybrid is in turn criticized as incorrect and incoherent—for details, see Statistical hypothesis testing. Statistical inference can be done without a null hypothesis, by specifying a statistical model corresponding to each candidate hypothesis and using model selection techniques to choose the most appropriate model.
Example[ edit ] Internet personality Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as: The number of gumballs is even.