Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. [1] It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities (US English: preponderance of the evidence) commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty ...
The criminal standard in Australia is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. [32] An offence against a Commonwealth law, with a term of imprisonment in excess of 12 months is an 'indictable offence'; [ 33 ] and is constitutionally required to be tried before jury of 12 people.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged." [1]: 17 It established this burden in all cases in all states (constitutional case).
the judge had wrongly decided he needed to be satisfied at the beyond reasonable doubt standard, before making a finding that adultery had occurred; the judge's reasons showed he would have made that finding if the balance of probabilities standard had been applied; he should have been so satisfied, or; a new hearing should take place.
The burden of proof then falls on the prosecution to produce evidence to support their position. In such a case, a legal burden will always rest on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence. A legal burden is determined by substantive law, rests upon one party and never shifts. [5]
There are various standards of evidence, standards showing how strong the evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt. There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source.
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".
There are different standards of persuasiveness ranging from a preponderance of the evidence, where there is just enough evidence to tip the balance, to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as in United States criminal courts. [27]: 17 The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute.