Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A "burden of proof" is a party's duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge, and includes the burden of production (providing enough evidence on an issue so that the trier-of-fact decides it rather than in a peremptory ruling like a directed verdict) and the burden of persuasion (standard of proof such as preponderance of the evidence). [2] [3]
Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence ...
The party that does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption of being correct, they are presumed to be correct, until the burden shifts after presentation of evidence by the party bringing the action. An example is in an American criminal case, where there is a presumption of innocence by the defendant. Fulfilling the ...
Different types of proceedings require parties to meet different burdens of proof, the typical examples being beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, and preponderance of the evidence. Many jurisdictions have burden-shifting provisions, which require that if one party produces evidence tending to prove a certain point, the ...
A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition. [1] [2] [3] [4]The concept applies in a variety of disciplines, [5] with both the nature of the evidence or justification and the criteria for sufficiency being area-dependent.
It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In this respect, affirmative defenses differ from ordinary defenses [claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)], which the prosecution has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable ...
The common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. [5] Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence ...
Thus, a trial court must separately analyze each individual statement, "sentence-by-sentence", [4] rather than analyzing the narrative as whole for hearsay content or exceptions. "The truth of the matter asserted" means the statement itself is being used as evidence to prove the substance of that statement.