Legal Definitions - proof, burden of

The burden of proof refers to the legal obligation of a party in a lawsuit or legal proceeding to present evidence that supports their claim or defense. It dictates which party must convince the judge or jury of certain facts and to what standard of certainty.

This concept has two main components:

• Burden of Production: The obligation to present enough evidence on an issue to have it considered by the court. If a party fails to meet this, the issue may not even be decided.
• Burden of Persuasion: The obligation to convince the judge or jury that a particular fact or set of facts is true, to a specific standard (e.g., "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases, or "preponderance of the evidence" in most civil cases).

Here are some examples illustrating the burden of proof:

• Example 1: A Civil Lawsuit for Breach of Contract

  Imagine a small business owner, Sarah, sues a supplier, TechCorp, claiming that TechCorp failed to deliver specialized computer parts on time, causing Sarah to lose a lucrative client contract. In this civil case, Sarah, as the plaintiff, carries the burden of proof. She must present evidence to the court demonstrating that a valid contract existed, that TechCorp breached that contract by failing to deliver on time, and that this breach directly resulted in her financial losses (e.g., lost profits from the client contract). If Sarah cannot provide sufficient evidence to convince the judge or jury that her claims are more likely true than not (the "preponderance of the evidence" standard), she will lose the case, even if TechCorp presents no defense.

• Example 2: A Criminal Prosecution for Assault

  Consider a situation where the state prosecutes John for assault. In this criminal case, the prosecution (representing the state) bears the burden of proof. They must present evidence—such as witness testimony, forensic evidence, or surveillance footage—to convince the jury that John committed the assault. Furthermore, they must prove this to a very high standard: "beyond a reasonable doubt." John, the defendant, does not have to prove his innocence; he can simply argue that the prosecution has not met its burden. If the prosecution fails to present enough compelling evidence to eliminate all reasonable doubt about John's guilt, the jury must find him not guilty, regardless of whether they personally believe he might have committed the crime.