Editing Burden of proof (law) (section)

== Standards of proof in the United States ==
Burden of proof refers most generally to the obligation of a party to prove its allegations at trial. In a civil case, the plaintiff sets forth its allegations in a complaint, petition or other pleading. The defendant is then required to file a responsive pleading denying some or all of the allegations and setting forth any [[affirmative defenses|affirmative facts in defense]]. Each party has the burden of proof of its allegations.

=== Legal standards for burden of proof ===
==== Some evidence ====
Per ''[[Superintendent v. Hill]]'' (1985), in order to take away a prisoner's [[good conduct time]] for a disciplinary violation, prison officials need only have "some evidence", i.e., "a modicum of evidence"; however, the sentencing judge is under no obligation to adhere to good/work time constraints, nor are they required to credit time served.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1063|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803075728/https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1063|url-status=dead|title=Legal Dictionary - Law.com|archivedate=August 3, 2020|website=Law.com Legal Dictionary}}</ref>

==== Reasonable indications ====
"Reasonable indication (also known as reasonable suspicion) is substantially lower than probable cause; factors to consider are those facts and circumstances a prudent investigator would consider, but must include facts or circumstances indicating a past, current, or impending violation; an objective factual basis must be present, a mere 'hunch' is insufficient."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hirsch Ballin|first1=Marianne|title=Anticipative Criminal Investigation: Theory and Counterterrorism Practice in the Netherlands and the United States|date=Mar 6, 2012|page=525|publisher=Springer |isbn=9789067048422|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CGExJeGdVF0C&q=%22reasonable%20indications%22%20crime&pg=PA524|access-date=5 April 2017|archive-date=29 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230629115713/https://books.google.com/books?id=CGExJeGdVF0C&q=%22reasonable%20indications%22%20crime&pg=PA524|url-status=live}}</ref>

The reasonable indication standard is used in interpreting trade law in determining if the United States has been materially injured.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pak|first1=Nam|title=American Lamb Company v. United States: Application of the Reasonable Indication Standard|journal=Northwest Journal of International Law and Business|date=1988|volume=9|issue=1|page=191|url=http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol9/iss1/11|access-date=9 April 2017|archive-date=10 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170410214003/http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol9/iss1/11/|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Reasonable suspicion ====
{{Main|Reasonable suspicion}}
Reasonable suspicion is a low standard of proof to determine whether a ''brief'' investigative stop or search by a police officer or any government agent is warranted. This stop or search must be brief; its thoroughness is proportional to, and limited by, the low standard of evidence. A more definite standard of proof (often [[probable cause]]) would be required to justify a more thorough stop/search. In ''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'', {{ussc|392|1|1968}}, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruled that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable, and individualized suspicion that crime is afoot. A mere guess or "hunch" is not enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.<ref name=Terry>''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'', 392 US at 27 [1968] "the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger."</ref>

An investigatory stop is a seizure under the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]].<ref name=Terry/> The state must justify the seizure by showing that the officer conducting the stop had a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.<ref name=Terry/> The important point is that officers cannot deprive a citizen of liberty unless the officer can point to specific facts and circumstances and inferences therefrom that would amount to a reasonable suspicion.<ref name=Terry/> The officer must be prepared to establish that criminal activity was a logical explanation for what they perceived. The requirement serves to prevent officers from stopping individuals based merely on hunches or unfounded suspicions.<ref name=Terry/> The purpose of the stop and detention is to investigate to the extent necessary to confirm or dispel the original suspicion.<ref name=Terry/> If the initial confrontation with the person stopped dispels suspicion of criminal activity the officer must end the detention and allow the person to go about their business.<ref name=Terry/> If the investigation confirms the officer's initial suspicion or reveals evidence that would justify continued detention the officer may require the person detained to remain at the scene until further investigation is complete, and may give rise to the level of probable cause.<ref name=Terry/>

==== Reasonable to believe ====
In ''[[Arizona v. Gant]]'' (2009), the United States Supreme Court arguably defined a new standard, that of "reasonable to believe". This standard applies only to vehicle searches after the suspect has been placed under arrest. The Court overruled ''[[New York v. Belton]]'' (1981) and concluded that police officers are allowed to go back and search a vehicle incident to a suspect's arrest only where it is "reasonable to believe" that there is more evidence in the vehicle of the crime for which the suspect was arrested.

There is still an ongoing debate as to the exact meaning of this phrase. Some courts have said it should be a new standard while others have equated it with the "reasonable suspicion" of the ''Terry'' stop. Most courts have agreed it is somewhere less than probable cause.

==== Probable cause ====
{{main|Probable cause}}
Probable cause is a higher standard of proof than reasonable suspicion, which is used in the United States to determine whether a search, or an arrest, is unreasonable. It is also used by [[grand jury|grand juries]] to determine whether to issue an [[indictment]]. In the civil context, this standard is often used where plaintiffs are seeking a prejudgement [[remedy (law)|remedy]].

In the criminal context, the U.S. Supreme Court in ''United States v. Sokolow'', {{ussc|490|1|1989}}, determined that probable cause requires "a fair [[probability]] that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found". The primary issue was whether [[Drug Enforcement Administration]] agents had a reason to execute a search. Courts have traditionally interpreted the idea of "a fair probability" as meaning whether a fair-minded evaluator would have reason to find it more likely than not that a fact (or ultimate fact) is true, which is quantified as a 51% certainty standard (using whole numbers as the increment of measurement). Some courts and scholars have suggested probable cause could, in some circumstances, allow for a fact to be established as true to a standard of less than 51%,<ref>{{Cite web |title=United States v. Melvin, 596 F.2d 492 {{!}} Casetext Search + Citator |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-melvin-4 |access-date=2024-09-01 |website=casetext.com}}</ref> but as of August 2019, the United States Supreme Court has never ruled that the quantification of probable cause is anything less than 51%. Probable cause can be contrasted with "reasonable articulable suspicion" which requires a police officer to have an unquantified amount of certainty the courts say is well below 51% before briefly detaining a suspect (without consent) to pat them down and attempt to question them.<ref name=Terry/> The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, used by criminal juries in the United States to determine guilt for a crime, also contrasts with probable cause which courts hold requires an unquantified level of proof well above that of probable cause's 51%.{{citation needed|date=January 2020}} Though it is beyond the scope of this topic, when courts review whether 51% probable cause certainty was a reasonable judgment, the legal inquiry is different for police officers in the field than it would be for grand jurors. In ''[[Franks v. Delaware]]'' (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court held that probable cause requires that there not be "reckless disregard for the truth" of the facts asserted.<ref>Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154,155-156; 438 U.S. 164-172 (1978). "Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. The trial court here therefore erred in refusing to examine the adequacy of petitioner's proffer of misrepresentation in the warrant affidavit."</ref>

Examples of a police officer's truth-certainty standards in the field and their practical consequences are offered below:
* {{em|no level of evidence required}}: a knowing and voluntary consent-based encounter between police officer and another person
* {{em|reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity required}}: an involuntary stop initiated by the officer to briefly detain, attempt to question, and pat down outer clothing of a person of interest to police.
* {{em|probable cause of 51% truth or higher required that a crime was committed by a specific person}}: arrest and/or grand jury indictment of that person.{{citation needed|date=January 2020}}

==== Some credible evidence ====
Some credible evidence is one of the least demanding standards of proof.  This proof standard is often used in administrative law settings and in some states to initiate [[Child Protective Services]] (CPS) proceedings.  This proof standard is used where short-term intervention is needed urgently, such as when a child is arguably in immediate danger from a parent or guardian.  The "some credible evidence" standard is used as a legal placeholder to bring some controversy before a trier of fact, and into a legal process. It is on the order of the factual standard of proof needed to achieve a finding of "probable cause" used in ''[[ex parte]]'' threshold determinations needed before a court will issue a search warrant.{{citation needed|date=January 2020}} It is a lower standard of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The standard does not require the fact-finder to weigh conflicting evidence, and merely requires the investigator or prosecutor to present the bare minimum of material credible evidence to support the allegations against the subject, or in support of the allegation; see ''Valmonte v. Bane,'' 18 F.3d 992 (2nd Cir. 1994). In some Federal Appellate Circuit Courts, such as the Second Circuit, the "some credible evidence" standard has been found constitutionally insufficient to protect liberty interests of the parties in controversy at CPS hearings.{{citation needed|date=January 2020}}

==== Preponderance of the evidence ====
Preponderance of the evidence (American English), also known as balance of probabilities (British English), is the standard required in civil cases, including [[family court]] determinations solely involving money, such as [[child support]] under the [[Child Support Standards Act]], and in [[child custody]] determinations between parties having equal legal rights respecting a child. It is also the standard of proof by which the defendant must prove [[affirmative defenses]] or [[mitigating circumstances]] in civil or criminal court in the United States. In civil courts, [[aggravating circumstances]] also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as in criminal court).

The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Another high-level way of interpreting that is that the plaintiff's case (evidence) be 51% likely. A more precise statement is that "the weight [of the evidence, including in calculating such a percentage] is determined not by the amount of evidence, but by its quality."<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2002-09-02 |title=How much evidence is required? Managing Today's Federal Employees |url=https://signin.lexisnexis.com/lnaccess/app/signin?back=https%3A%2F%2Fadvance.lexis.com%3A443%2Fnexis-uni%2Flaapi%2Fdocument%3Fcollection%3Dnews%26id%3Durn%253AcontentItem%253A46P4-C990-00BP-J0YC-00000-00%26context%3D1516831&aci=nu |url-access=subscription |access-date=2023-09-30 |website=Nexis Uni® |series=Vol. 4, No. 3 |publisher=LRP Publications}}</ref> The author goes on to affirm that preponderance is "merely enough to tip the scales" towards one party; however, that tilt need only be so slight as the weight of a "feather." Until 1970, it was also the standard used in juvenile court in the [[United States]].<ref>In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970)</ref> Compared to the criminal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," the preponderance of the evidence standard is "a somewhat easier standard to meet."<ref name=":5" />

Preponderance of the evidence is also the standard of proof used in [[United States administrative law]]. In at least one case, there is a statutory definition of the standard.

While there is no federal definition, such as by definition of the courts or by statute applicable to all cases, The [[Merit Systems Protection Board]]'s has codified their definition at 5 CFR 1201.56(c)(2). MSPB defines the standard as "The degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue." One author highlights the phrase "more likely to be true than untrue" as the critical component of the definition.<ref name=":5" />

From 2013 to 2020, the [[United States Department of Education|Department of Education]] required schools to use a preponderance of evidence standard in evaluating sexual assault claims.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lhamon |first1=Catherine E. |title=Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence |url=https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf |website=Department of Education |access-date=4 January 2022 |archive-date=18 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211218184606/https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== Clear and convincing evidence ====
Clear and convincing evidence is a higher level of burden of persuasion than "preponderance of the evidence", but less than "beyond reasonable doubt". It is employed intra-adjudicatively in administrative court determinations, as well as in [[civil procedure|civil]] and certain [[criminal procedure]] in the United States. For example, a prisoner seeking ''[[habeas corpus]]'' relief from [[Capital punishment in the United States|capital punishment]] must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.<ref>''Calderon v. Thompson'', {{ussc|523|538|1998}}. The petitioner, Thomas M. Thompson, a convicted rapist/murderer, was executed on July 14, 1998.</ref> New York State uses this standard when a court must determine whether to involuntarily hospitalize a mentally ill patient or to issue an [[Assisted Outpatient Treatment]] Order.<ref>New York State Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.33 & 9.60.</ref> This standard was also codified by the United States Supreme Court in all mental health civil commitment cases.<ref>Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979)</ref>

This standard is used in many types of [[Equity (law)|equity]] cases, including [[paternity (law)|paternity]], [[persons in need of supervision]], [[child custody]], the [[probate]] of both wills and [[living wills]], petitions to remove a person from [[life support]] ("[[right to die]]" cases),<ref>See, ''[[Quinlan case#Legal battle|Quinlan v. New Jersey]]'', and ''[[Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health]]'', 497 U.S. 261 (1990).</ref> mental hygiene and involuntary hospitalizations, and many similar cases.

Clear and convincing evidence is the standard of proof used for immunity from prosecution under Florida's [[stand-your-ground law]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html|title=Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes: Online Sunshine|access-date=2021-05-22|archive-date=2021-05-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210522181637/http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html|url-status=live}}</ref>{{non-primary source needed|date=May 2024}}{{or|date=May 2024}} Once raised by the defense, the state must present its evidence in a pre-trial hearing, showing that the statutory prerequisites have not been met, and then request that the court deny a motion for declaration of immunity. The judge must then decide from clear and convincing evidence whether to grant immunity.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html |title=Florida Stand Your Ground Law &#124; Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense |access-date=2013-07-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104224306/http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html |archive-date=2013-11-04 }}</ref> This is a lower burden than "beyond a reasonable doubt", the threshold a prosecutor must meet at any proceeding criminal trial,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133/|title=Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied|work=Tampa Bay Times|access-date=2013-07-29|archive-date=2021-12-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211207094545/https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133/|url-status=live}}</ref> but higher than the "probable cause" threshold generally required for [[indictment]].

Clear and convincing proof means that the evidence presented by a party during the trial must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not and the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in its factuality.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://congressionalresearch.com/98-990/document.php|quote=Clear and convincing evidence is  typically defined as that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegation sought to be established.|title=Standard of Proof in Senate Impeachment Proceedings|publisher=Congressional Research Service|author=Ripy, Thomas B.|access-date=2019-02-10|archive-date=2019-04-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190423160246/http://congressionalresearch.com/98-990/document.php|url-status=live}}</ref> In this standard, a greater degree of believability must be met than the common standard of proof in civil actions (i.e. preponderance of the evidence), which only requires that the facts as a threshold be more likely than not to prove the issue for which they are asserted.

This standard is also known as "clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence"; "clear, cognizant, and convincing evidence", and is applied in cases or situations involving an equitable remedy or where a presumptive civil liberty interest exists. For example, this is the standard or quantum of evidence use to [[probate]] a [[last will and testament]].

==== Beyond reasonable doubt ====
{{main|Reasonable doubt}}

This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in juvenile delinquency proceedings, criminal proceedings, and when considering [[aggravating circumstances]] in criminal proceedings. It has been described, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of one's own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.

If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty which precludes the existence of any reasonable alternatives. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no ''reasonable'' doubt is possible from the evidence presented.<ref>{{cite AustLII|HCA|55|1971|litigants=Green v The Queen |parallelcite=(1971) 126 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 28 at p. 33 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> Further to this notion of moral certainty, where the trier of fact relies on proof that is solely circumstantial, ''i.e.'', when conviction is based entirely on [[circumstantial evidence]], certain jurisdictions specifically require the prosecution's burden of proof to be such that the facts proved must exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis or inference other than guilt.

The main reason that this high level of proof is demanded in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in their death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which monetary damages are the common remedy.

Another noncriminal instance in which proof beyond a reasonable doubt is applied is [[Conservatorship|LPS conservatorship]].