The burden of proof for most civil cases is a “preponderance of the evidence.”Â
(This burden of proof is also used in some Massachusetts criminal proceedings, most notably probation violation hearings.)
The phrase “preponderance of the evidence” is, in the words of the Supreme Court, “susceptible to misinterpretation” and often wrongly construed as a mere summing up of the number of evidentiary items presented by each litigant. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970)
What follows are quotes from several authoritative sources defining (or at least attempting to define) the true meaning of a “preponderance of the evidence.”
Here in Massachusetts, courts adhere to the definition set by the Supreme Judicial Court:
The weight or ponderance of evidence is its power to convince the tribunal which has the determination of the fact, of the actual truth of the proposition to be proved. After the evidence has been weighed, that proposition is proved by a preponderance of the evidence if it is made to appear more likely or probable in the sense that actual belief in its truth, derived from the evidence, exists in the mind or minds of the tribunal not withstanding any doubts that may still linger there.
Sargent v. Massachusetts Acc. Co. 307 Mass. 246, 250.
The United States Supreme Court gives this definition.
A preponderance of the evidence standard…simply requires the trier of fact to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence before [he] may find in favor of the party who has the burden to persuade the [jury] of the fact’s existence.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970)
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals gives this lengthy but easy-to-read definition:
This is a civil case. [Plaintiff] is the party [who/that] brought this lawsuit. [Defendant] is the party against [whom/which] the lawsuit was filed. [Plaintiff] has the burden of proving [his/her/its] case by what is called the preponderance of the evidence. That means [plaintiff] has to prove to you, in light of all the evidence, that what [he/she/it] claims is more likely so than not so. To say it differently: if you were to put the evidence favorable to [plaintiff] and the evidence favorable to [defendant] on opposite sides of the scales, [plaintiff] would have to make the scales tip somewhat on [his/her/its] side. If [plaintiff] fails to meet this burden, the verdict must be for [defendant]. If you find after considering all the evidence that a claim or fact is more likely so than not so, then the claim or fact has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
In determining whether any fact has been proved by a preponderance of evidence in the case, you may, unless otherwise instructed, consider the testimony of all witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who may have produced them You may have heard of the term “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is a stricter standard of proof and it applies only to criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases such as this. So you should put it out of your mind.
Third Circuit Model Jury Instructions, 1.10
Finally, no collection of legal definitions would be complete without a quote from Black’s Law Dictionary:
The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition