The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard goes by descriptions such as "clear, cogent, unequivocal, satisfactory, convincing" evidence. Generally, this standard is reserved for civil lawsuits where something more than money is at stake, such as civil liberties.
Examples include:. Conservatorship of Wendland , 26 Cal. Kramer , U. Colorado v. New Mexico , U. This is the standard the U. Constitution requires the government to meet in order to prove a defendant guilty of a crime. In re Winship , U. Courts over the years have debated the extent to which the government has to prove its case to meet this high standard. But it's clear that, according to the standard, it's not enough for the trier of fact to simply believe the defendant is guilty.
Rather, the evidence must be so convincing that no reasonable person would ever question the defendant's guilt. The standard requires that the evidence offer no logical explanation or conclusion other than that the defendant committed the crime.
Courts sometimes describe this level of confidence in a verdict as a moral certainty. Nor must the prosecution prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt or to an absolute certainty. These would be impossible burdens because only witnesses to an alleged crime can be certain—and even then, not all witnesses can be certain.
Rather, this highest of standards requires—after consideration of all facts—only one logical conclusion: that the defendant is indeed guilty. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service.
Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Grow Your Legal Practice. Meet the Editors. Estate of Pender , So.
Frazier In re Estate of Musil , So. Geodata Services, Inc. Pfeiffer , So. Steinhardt, So. Palm Beach Taverns, Inc. Harris, So. Freedman, So. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular determination. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. In administrative law proceedings, the standard of proof that most commonly applies is the substantial evidence standard.
This standard requires the plaintiff or moving party to provide enough evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a particular conclusion. This standard requires the prosecution to show that the only logical explanation that can be derived from the facts is that the defendant committed the alleged crime, and that no other logical explanation can be inferred or deduced from the evidence.
Nebraska , U. What is required is not an absolute or mathematical certainty, but a moral certainty. In the criminal law context, there are a few additional standards that apply in specific circumstances. Another well-known standard is the probable cause standard. In Illinois v. Gates , U. Other standards used to evaluate evidence in the criminal context include reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion.
Any police actions that are subject to these standards of proof must be based on grounds that are reasonable in light of the circumstances. Ohio , U. Another common standard of proof used in some criminal law proceedings is the credible evidence standard.
Some have defined this standard as requiring the jury to conclude that the evidence is natural, reasonable, and probable in order for it to be credible.
0コメント