Burden of Proof - The Reasonable Doubt Rule, Reasons For The Rule, Issues That Should Be Governed By The Rule
The principal purpose of most trials is to resolve a dispute about facts. Both parties present evidence to a fact finder, either judge or jury, who evaluates the evidence and resolves the controversy. A number of rules of law guide the fact finder in evaluating the evidence; most important of these are the rules that tell the fact finder who should have the benefit of the doubt.
These rules are typically expressed as statements about which party must carry the burden of proof, and how heavy the burden is. For example, in most civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, and the burden is to prove the case "by a preponderance of evidence." In criminal cases, it has long been the general rule that the prosecution has the burden of proof, and the burden is to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."
BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD
SCOTT E. SUNDBY
- Burglary - Origins Of The Offense, Modern Statutory Scheme, Current Trends In America, Bibliography
- Ted Bundy - Critical Beginnings, Political Connections, Violence In Paradise, On The Move, Beginning Of The End
- Burden of Proof - The Reasonable Doubt Rule
- Burden of Proof - Reasons For The Rule
- Burden of Proof - Issues That Should Be Governed By The Rule
- Burden of Proof - Presumptions As Burden-shifting Devices
- Burden of Proof - Bibliography
- Burden of Proof - Cases
- Other Free Encyclopedias