Burden of Proof

What is meant by the "burden of proof"? Answer: That’s what the party bringing the claim must prove to win their case. You may say "That still doesn’t tell me what it means." So you can understand, the court defines it by saying you must prove your case in a civil case by a preponderance of the evidence.

And just what does that mean? Answer: It means that when you bring a case you must offer believable evidence (proof) that your guy is right and the other guy is wrong. You must prove it by having more believable evidence than the other side. 50.01% is enough. In a civil case you don’t have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" like you do in a criminal case. I have seen the burden of proof explained in many ways, but the best explanation I have seen is by using a scale of justice. What you do is show the jury the scale of justice and tip the scale a millimeter and tell them "That’s it. Just tip the scale a little and you have proven your case by "a preponderance of the evidence."

Why does a claimant have to prove his/her case by a preponderance of the evidence? Because the law strives to keep the trash out . . . to keep justice from going astray by a "frivolous lawsuit."

Does that mean that a person should not assert his/her claim because he/she has to meet his burden of proof? Absolutely not. People are encouraged to bring their dispute to the courts instead of resolving them with clubs and guns. That is what courts are for.

And guess what . . . it works. We have built the greatest nation in the world that has thrived on the back of justice for all and the availability and access to the courts for our disagreements.

A poxy on those who seek to destroy that system by coming down on the judges and the lawyers.

Thanks for listening . . . see you in court.