There are different standards of proof depending on the type of trial. The standards have different definitions and different levels of difficulty.<\/p>\n
For example, in criminal trials, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d. This is the highest burden of proof to meet out of all the possible standards.<\/p>\n
\u201cBeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d requires that the prosecution must prove its case to the extent that there could be no \u201creasonable doubt\u201d in the mind of a \u201creasonable person\u201d that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person\u2019s belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.<\/p>\n
However, if doubt does affect a \u201creasonable person\u2019s\u201d belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond \u201creasonable doubt.\u201d<\/p>\n
Another standard of proof is the \u201cpreponderance of the evidence\u201d standard. This is the standard that that a plaintiff must meet in civil trials. This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. The standard is satisfied if there is a greater than a 50% chance that the proposition is true. This standard has the lowest burden to meet which means that it is easier to meet than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.<\/p>\n
If you are ever involved in a trial, civil or criminal, it is a good idea to know which of these standards are relevant to the case.<\/p>\n