BURDEN OF PROOF

The phrase burden of proof refers to the obligation of a party who initiates a legal

action (the “plaintiff”) to prove his or her claims. If that party cannot prove
sufficiently that the other party has committed a wrong, whether civil or criminal,
he loses. The level or certainty to which the plaintiff must prove his case depends
on the type of case. To explore this concept, consider the following burden of
proof definition.

What is Burden of Proof

In the U.S. legal system, a person accused of a crime is, by law, considered
innocent until proven guilty. In other words, it is assumed that he is innocent, and
it is the prosecutor’s responsibility to prove he committed the crime. This benefit
of assumption is extended to civil lawsuits as well. When a person files a civil
lawsuit, claiming the other party did something wrong that somehow harmed him,
he is required to bring enough evidence to convince the judge or jury. The other
party does not have to provide evidence that he didn’t do it, though he can submit
evidence that contradicts the plaintiff’s evidence.
This requirement that the party bringing a legal action prove his case is referred to
as the burden of proof. In a criminal case, burden of proof is on the prosecutor,
who must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the
crime for which he is charged. This means there is zero doubt that the plaintiff did
it. In a civil case, the standard of proof is much lower, with the plaintiff being
required only to prove that it is more likely than not that the defendant cause his
damages.

Burden of Proof in a Civil Lawsuit

When an individual files a civil lawsuit against someone else, the burden of proof
rests on his shoulders. When the parties go to court, they each have an opportunity
to tell their side of the story. Of course, if that was all that was needed, nearly
every case would end in a “he said / she said” situation. The party who filed the
lawsuit, called the “plaintiff,” or the “petitioner,” must prove that the things alleged
in the lawsuit are true, and that the other party, called the “defendant,” or the
“respondent,” caused harm or damages.
The standard to which the plaintiff must prove his case in a civil lawsuit is quite
different from the standard of proof required in a criminal case. In a civil case, it
need only be proven by a preponderance of evidence, which means that it is more
likely than not that the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s damages. There
are some types of civil cases that are considered to be more serious. These cases
must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the evidence
presented against the defendant must have a high probability of being true.
For example:
Sarah’s gold necklace disappeared out of her jewelry box, and she suspects her
roommate took it. When the roommate, Nora, denies having taken it, then shows
up with a new tablet that she couldn’t afford a couple of weeks before, Sarah
demands payment for her missing necklace. She files a civil lawsuit against Nora,
asking for $750 as reimbursement for the stolen item.
During the trial at small claims court, Sarah cannot provide concrete proof that it
was Nora who took her necklace. In fact, Nora tells the judge that there were other
people in and out of the apartment the day it went missing. Sarah makes the
argument that the necklace was inside her jewelry box, in her locked bedroom, and
that Nora was the only person besides herself who had a key to the bedroom. In
this example of burden of proof requirement, Sarah convinced the judge that it was
more likely than not that Nora took the necklace. She awarded Sarah the value of
the necklace.

Burden of Proof in a Criminal Case

In a criminal case, the accused person is by law assumed innocent until the
prosecution proves that he is guilty. The burden of proof in a criminal case rests on
the prosecution, with no requirement that the defendant prove that he is innocent.
The standard to which the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt is much
higher than in a civil case, as the defendant’s freedom is often at risk. In a criminal
matter, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant
did the deed.
There are a few circumstances in which a defendant may want to take action in
proving his innocence. If the defendant wishes, for instance, to make a claim that
he is not guilty by reason of insanity, the burden of proving that he was insane at
the time of the crime, rests on the defendant. Claims of duress or self-defense also
require the defendant to prove the circumstances.
For example:
A few weeks ago, 19-year old Samuel noticed someone following his 16-year old
sister around, after school, in the morning, and even at the mall. His sister was
scared, so Samuel started walking her to and from school, and other places she
needed to go. A few days later the man approached Samuel when he was alone,
and said he wanted Samuel to break into his Uncle’s home and steal some valuable
items. When Samuel made it clear he thought the man had lost his mind, the man
threatened Samuel’s sister, saying he knows where she lives and goes to school,
and all of the places she hangs out, implying she would be harmed if he didn’t
cooperate.
Afraid for his sister’s safety, Samuel let himself in to his Uncle’s house while he
was at work. He grabbed the items the man demanded, and left. Eventually Samuel
was arrested and charged with breaking and entering, and burglary. Samuel pled
not guilty, and when the case went to trial, it was the prosecutor’s job to prove that
Samuel, without a doubt, committed the crime. After the prosecutor showed some
weighty evidence and testimony, Samuel’s attorney began painting a picture of
Samuel’s very real fear for his sister’s safety. In this example of burden of proof,
Samuel is claiming that, while he did steal the items from his Uncle’s home, he did
it under duress.

Burden of Proof Example in Murder Trial

In 1995, former football player O.J. Simpson was charged with the brutal murders
of his ex-wife, Nichole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman.
Simpson’s crackerjack team of defense lawyers watched for over six months as the
prosecution painted a mural of facts and evidence against Simpson, in an attempt
to meet their burden of proof. In the end, a key piece of evidence, the bloody
leather glove that had supposedly been worn by Simpson when he committed the
murders, proved to be the prosecution’s undoing.
As they sat back while the defense team took over to refute each piece of evidence,
and point out inconsistencies in the testimony of various witnesses, the prosecution
felt they had effectively laid the groundwork for a successful conviction. When his
attorney had Simpson step over to stand right in front of the jury box, then directed
him to put on that same glove, the prosecution’s entire case came undone. After
laboring for months to meet their burden of proof, that simple act of attempting to
pull a glove several sizes too small over Simpson’s hand, introduced doubt that the
jury simply couldn’t overcome.
Quite possibly remembering attorney Johnny Cochran’s declaration about the
glove, “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” the jury deliberated only four days before
declaring O.J. Simpson not guilty on both counts of murder. Although, in this
example of burden of proof, the prosecution shouldered their responsibility of
proving the case, they failed to meet the standard of proof, which them to prove
Simpson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court on Burden of Proof
In 1967, 12-year old Samuel Winship was arrested, and charged with breaking into
a woman’s locker, stealing over $100 from her purse. In the official charge, the
prosecution argued that, had an adult committed the same act, it would be
considered larceny. At the time, New York law required that deciding whether or
not a juvenile was guilty of a crime be based on a preponderance of evidence.
While the prosecution still had the burden of proving that Winship was guilty of
the crime, the standard to which he had to prove his assumption was much lower
than it would have been for an adult.
Using this lower standard, the court found Winship guilty. His attorney appealed,
arguing that, if the prosecution wished to charge the young man with an adult
crime, the standard of proof must be that of an adult, which is beyond reasonable
doubt.  Both the appellate court, and the New York Supreme Court denied
Winship’s appeal based on his due process rights. His case was then taken before
the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a split 5-3 decision, the Court ruled that the State has the burden of proving guilt
in a criminal matter beyond a reasonable doubt, for both adults and juveniles.
While making decisions by a preponderance of evidence is commonly used in civil
cases, the possibility that the fate of a defendant might be decided wrongly, based
on errors in presentation of facts, is too great. In any case in which loss of liberty is
a possibility, the due process standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt must
apply, regardless of the defendant’s age.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

 Civil Lawsuit – A lawsuit brought about in court when one person claims to
have suffered a loss due to the actions of another person.
 Duress – Threats, intimidation, or bullying intended to force someone to do
something.
 Guilty – Having committed an offense, violation, crime, or wrong, especially
against penal or moral law.
 Innocent – Free from guilt or sin; not guilty of a crime or offense.
 Prosecutor – A government attorney tasked with presenting the state’s case
against a defendant in a criminal case.
PRIMA FACIE
The Latin term prima facie means “at first glance,” or “at first appearance,” and it
is generally used to describe how a situation appears on initial observation. In the
legal system, prima facie is commonly used to refer to either a piece of evidence
which is presumed to be true when first viewed, or a legal claim in which enough
evidence is presented to support the validity of the claim. To explore this concept,
consider the following prima facie definition.

History of the Term Prima Facie

This Latin term literally translates as “at first face,” or “at first appearance.”
Modern English tends to use the term to mean “on the face of it,” in conversational
English, academic philosophy, and the law. Prima facie implies that evidence
exists which, unless disproven, is sufficient to prove a certain fact or circumstance.
Example of use in academic philosophy:
Anthropologists agreed that a relationship exists between race and culture.
Therefore, cultural diversity within a given geographical area may be seen
as prima facie evidence that the inhabitants were racially diverse.

Use of Prima Facie in the Legal System

In the U.S. legal system, there must be a prima facie case in order to commence
legal proceedings, meaning that there must be enough evidence at first glance to
assume that the plaintiff has a valid legal claim. This does not mean there must be
sufficient evidence to prove the claim when filing, as determining the presence and
truth of such evidence is the purpose of the trial system.

Prima Facie in a Civil Lawsuit

When someone files a civil lawsuit, he must present facts or circumstances which
tend to support each element of his claim. If he fails to do so, he runs the risk of
having the case dismissed, or receiving an adverse directed verdict. This means
that the defendant may ask the judge to order a summary judgment or directed
verdict because there is no valid legal claim. This may be done before the
defendant even has to present evidence to disprove the plaintiff’s claim, as the
burden of proving the case rests on the shoulders of the plaintiff.
Prima Facie in a Criminal Case
Before an individual can be tried on criminal charges, a preliminary hearing must
be held so that the court can determine whether there is sufficient cause to continue
to trial. During this prima facie stage of the legal process, it is only necessary to
present some credible evidence of each element of the case. By contrast,
successfully prosecuting the defendant during trial requires that he is guilty of each
element of the crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
When an individual is being tried on criminal charges, the prosecutor has the
burden of presenting a prima facie case, proving each and every element of the
crime.
For example:
Angelo has been charged with burglary of Stephanie’s home. At trial, the
prosecutor must present evidence that Angelo entered into the home without
authorization, which is just one element of the crime of burglary. The prosecutor
presents testimony that Angelo and Stephanie had an argument at work, during
which Angelo flung some vague threats. A few weeks following the burglary,
Angelo was found to possess one of the items stolen from Stephanie’s home.
While Angelo having possession of an item belonging to Stephanie is suspicious,
and may be evidence of some other crime, such as possession of stolen property, it
is not in itself evidence of a burglary. There were no witnesses, and no evidence
that Angelo was ever in Stephanie’s home. The defendant could request the charge
of burglary be dismissed, or that the judge order a directed verdict, based on the
prosecution’s failure to present a prima facie case for burglary, without ever
having to present any evidence of his own.
If, on the other hand, the prosecution presents any evidence that Angelo had been
in Stephanie’s home, such as a fingerprint, or an eyewitness account, the
requirement of presenting a prima facie case has been met. This does not
necessarily prove definitively that Angelo is guilty, but the defendant would need
to present evidence that either disproves, or causes doubt about, Angelo’s guilt.

Evidence Accepted as Prima Facie

Evidence that may be accepted as prima facie is any evidence which, if accepted at
face value, supports the case, or a necessary element of the case.
For example:
Natalie and her husband, Mike, have a violent argument in which she accuses him
of cheating on her. The fight spills out the front door onto the lawn, where a
neighbor video records it with his smartphone. While Mike got into his car and
drove away after a few minutes, he was discovered dead in the couple’s home a
week later. The medical examiner determined that Mike’s death had been caused
by poison, and Natalie was subsequently arrested and charged with first degree
murder.
In order to gain a verdict of first degree murder, as opposed to other types of
murder, there must have been intent to commit murder. During the trial, the
prosecutor presents the neighbor’s video recording on which Natalie can clearly be
seen and heard threatening to kill Mike. This alone is not proof that Natalie killed
Mike, but it does serve to prove her intent. If the prosecution is successful in
proving the other elements of murder, the video recording may serve as prima
facie evidence that Natalie intended to kill her husband.
The laws in each jurisdiction also define certain other types of evidence that may
be taken at face value, or which are considered as prima facie evidence in some
cases. For example, an official copy of a defendant’s criminal record may serve
as prima facie evidence of his character as a habitual criminal. In a civil case, a
certified copy of a real property deed may serve as prima facie evidence of a
party’s ownership of the property.

Consideration of Prima Facie Evidence

When a court accepts prima facie evidence, it becomes the responsibility of the
opposing party to disprove that evidence if he does not want it taken at face value.
In the event a party presents sufficient evidence to refute such prima
facie evidence, the judge or jury may still consider the prima facie evidence, but it
must be considered with, and weighed against, all other evidence.
For example:
In most cases, proof than an individual mailed a letter is considered prima
facie evidence that the letter was delivered to the person to whom it was addressed.
If the individual to whom the letter was addressed wants to refute that fact,
claiming that he never received the letter, he must present some proof or
convincing argument.

Prima Facie vs. Res Ipsa Loquitur

The term prima facie is sometimes confused with the term res ipsa loquitur, which
means “the thing speaks for itself.” Res ipsa loquitur may be used to refer to a
situation in which the facts make it self-evident that the negligence, liability, or
responsibility for damages lies with a party, based on the very nature of the
accident or injury.
The difference between these two terms is that prima facie means there is enough
evidence to file or pursue a case. Res ipsa loquitur means that the facts are so
obvious that there is no need for further explanation.
For example:
Edward leaves his rented home for a few days, but forgets to turn off the hose
filling his pool. The water flows over, taking out part of the landscaping on its way
to the street. The landlord has filed a civil lawsuit seeking reimbursement for
repairs to the landscape, as well as for the fine imposed by the city.
In this case, res ipsa loquitur means that it is obvious the damages were caused by
the defendant’s negligent act. The home was placed in his care as a result of the
lease, and his negligence caused the damages. There is no need for the landlord to
otherwise prove liability, only the amount of damages.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

 Civil Lawsuit – A lawsuit brought about in court when one person claims to
have suffered a loss due to the actions of another person.
 Defendant – A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or
who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.
 Directed Verdict – An order for a jury to return a specific verdict because
there is no legally sufficient evidence to support a different conclusion.
 Jurisdiction – The legal authority to hear legal cases and make judgments; the
geographical region of authority to enforce justice.
 Plaintiff – A person who brings a legal action against another person or entity,
such as in a civil lawsuit, or criminal proceedings.
 Prosecutor – A person, especially a public official, who institutes legal
proceedings against someone.
 Summary Judgment – A final decision on the case, handed down by the
judge on the basis of the statements and evidence presented, without a full
trial.