Legal Definitions - no evidence

In legal terms, "no evidence" refers to a situation where the information presented in a case is either insufficient to meet a legal standard or irrelevant to the matter being discussed. It doesn't always mean there is literally *zero* information, but rather that the information provided does not carry enough legal weight or relevance to support a claim or defense.

Specifically, "no evidence" can mean:

• Legally Insufficient Evidence: This occurs when a party, who has the responsibility to prove a particular fact or their entire case (known as the "burden of proof"), has presented information that, even if believed, is not strong or complete enough for a reasonable person (like a jury or judge) to conclude that the fact or case has been proven. In such situations, a judge might decide that no reasonable jury could find in favor of that party.
• Irrelevant or Valueless Evidence: This refers to specific pieces of information offered as evidence that do not actually help to prove or disprove a particular fact that is important to the case. Such evidence is considered to have no probative value.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1 (Legally Insufficient Evidence in a Civil Case):

  Imagine a small business owner sues a supplier, claiming the supplier failed to deliver a crucial order. The business owner presents emails showing initial price quotes and discussions about the order, but no signed contract, no purchase order, and no clear agreement on delivery dates or payment terms. The supplier's lawyer could argue there is no evidence of a legally binding contract. While there were discussions, the presented information is insufficient to prove that a formal, enforceable agreement was ever made. A judge might agree, ruling that no reasonable jury could conclude a contract existed based solely on these preliminary communications.

• Example 2 (Legally Insufficient Evidence in a Criminal Case):

  In a criminal trial for arson, the prosecution presents evidence that the defendant owned a book about fire safety and was seen driving near the burned building a week before the incident. The defense could argue that this constitutes no evidence sufficient to prove the defendant committed arson. While the information might raise suspicion, owning a book about fire safety and being in the vicinity a week prior do not directly link the defendant to setting the fire or meet the high legal standard of proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." A reasonable jury could not convict based solely on such tangential information.

• Example 3 (Irrelevant or Valueless Evidence):

  Consider a personal injury lawsuit where a pedestrian is suing a driver for negligence after being hit by a car. During the trial, the driver's attorney attempts to introduce evidence that the pedestrian frequently jaywalked in other parts of the city. The judge would likely rule this as no evidence relevant to the current case. The pedestrian's past jaywalking habits in different locations have no bearing on whether the driver was negligent in *this specific accident* or on the extent of the pedestrian's injuries. It has no value in proving or disproving any material fact directly related to the incident in question.