2007-09-18 17:32:06 · 9 answers · asked by Johnnie G 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In criminal cases the prosecution has the burden of making their case beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that it has to be a near certainty that the person is guilty and no other options appear reasonable. The jury in most jurisdictions must usually be unanimous.
In civil cases the plaintiff's burden is merely preponderance of the evidence, meaning that its more likely that the plaintiff's claims are true but not necessarily certain, depending on the jurisdiction, jury verdicts can require a majority, 9 of 12 (75%) or unanimous vote.
2007-09-18 17:44:44 · answer #1 · answered by JasonJD 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Burden Of Proof Criminal Case
2016-12-28 16:48:06 · answer #2 · answered by mccasland 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-04 00:54:15 · answer #3 · answered by Jayson 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Burdens of proof come in three different flavors. There is "proof by a preponderance of the evidence," which means that, upon weighing the evidence offered by each side, the 'weightier' case win. The one with a greater quantity of quality evidence is the winner. This burden of proof applies when determining whether a civil verdict will be for plaintiff or defendant. It is also the burden of proof applied when deciding the admissibility of the evidence in any case.
The next standard is "clear and convincing proof." This applies to certain limited circumstances, where more evidence than "more likely than not" is needed. For example, proceedings to terminate parental rights for permanent neglect require clear and convincing proof.
The highest standard known to the law is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This does not mean absolute certainty, it does not mean a conclusion that is free of all doubt whatsoever. It means a REASONABLE certainty, one that is free from reasonable doubts, one that a reasonable person would treat as sufficient to make a morally certain determination.
2007-09-18 18:02:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The lawyer, including the criminal on the bench, loves the criminal. The criminal lover lawyer want to protect the criminal from any accountability. They set the obstacles to justice very high, to prevent the slightest harm from hurting or scaring their pal, the criminal. So beyond a reasonable doubt means around 80% certainty.
On the other hand, the criminal lover lawyer hates anybody or anything productive and good for the nation. So the slightest excess of evidence, and the lawyer has a gotcha. This enables the criminal lover lawyer to plunder all productive entities.
I find it funny, that an opposing party can never sue the criminal lover lawyer. The jury is good enough to regulate highly technical enterprises. The jury is not good enough to regulate the criminal lover lawyer, the world's biggest criminal syndicate.
2007-09-18 17:47:19 · answer #5 · answered by buttfor2007 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In criminal cases, it takes all 12 jurors to convict. So 12 out of 12.
In civil cases, if a jury presides instead of only a judge, then it takes a majority. Basically 51%.
2007-09-18 17:34:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Criminal cases is about the liberty of a person and it is very precious. Thus, the evidence presented must be more credible than civil cases that only concerns with property and personal rights.
2007-09-18 17:35:52 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Criminal Records Search Database : http://CriminalRecords.InfoSearchDetective.com
2015-02-04 21:21:50 · answer #8 · answered by Norman 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
criminal court: beyond a reasonable doubt. i have no idea what that percentage would be.
civil court: preponderance of the evidence. >50%
2007-09-18 17:35:25 · answer #9 · answered by brian 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋