What is the difference between a "preponderance of the evidence" and "clear and concise evidence" ?

Question

When are each used in court?

Answer 1

Clear and concise evidence - there is no doubt.
A preponderance of the evidence - there is some doubt, but there is more evidence in favor of one party than the other.

Answer 2

A preponderance of evidence simply means that something is more likely true than not true. This is the threshold in civil cases. A plaintiff doesn't need a signed contract to establish that a legal agreement was made. They only have to convince the judge that an agreement was probably made.

Clear and concise evidence would be the threshold for a criminal case, where a person must be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Answer 3

Clear and Convincing Evidence is more than a Preponderance. There is no exact number assigned to each, but Preponderance is more evidence than not (basically, greater than 51%). It depends on what you are trying to prove, for what purpose, and the rights of the individual parties. Preponderance of Evidence is the normal standard in Civil Court. Clear and Convincing Evidence is more an evidentiary rule than anything else. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the normal standard in Criminal Court.

Answer 4

These are evidentiary standards that the plaintiff in a civil court trial must prove his case to the finder of fact.

1. preponderance of the evidence standard is whether the evidence proves that it is more likely than not that i.e. the defendant defamed the plaintiff. In percentages, the evidence must have a 51% showing that the defendant wronged the plaintiff.

2. Clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard, necessary to prove fraud or obtain pubnitive damages. The percentage is approximately 66.6% probability, based upon the evidence, that the defendant wronged the plaintiff.

3. Beyond a reasonable doubt: this is the standard for criminal cases, and is the highest evidentiary standard.