Legal Definitions - weight of evidence

Weight of Evidence

In legal terms, the weight of evidence refers to how convincing, credible, and persuasive a piece of evidence or a collection of evidence is, rather than simply how much evidence there is. It's about the power of the evidence to induce belief and sway a judge or jury towards one side of an argument over another. A small amount of highly reliable and impactful evidence can have more "weight" than a large quantity of less credible or less relevant information.

• Example 1: A Criminal Trial

  Imagine a theft case where the prosecution presents a single, clear security camera video showing the defendant committing the crime. The defense, on the other hand, brings in three witnesses who testify that the defendant is a generally honest person and was seen in a different part of town around the time of the theft, but their recollections are somewhat vague. Even though the defense has more witnesses (a greater quantity of evidence), the prosecution's single video might carry significantly more weight of evidence because it is a direct, objective, and highly persuasive piece of proof that directly addresses the act.

• Example 2: A Business Contract Dispute

  Consider a dispute between two companies over a verbal agreement. Company A presents five emails discussing various aspects of the deal, but none explicitly confirm the final terms. Company B presents a single, signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) that clearly outlines all the agreed-upon terms and conditions. In this scenario, the single MOU from Company B would likely have far greater weight of evidence than Company A's multiple, less conclusive emails, because the MOU is a definitive, formal document directly proving the agreement.

• Example 3: A Personal Injury Claim

  In a personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff might present testimony from their family doctor stating they suffered an injury. The defendant might then present testimony from a highly specialized, board-certified orthopedic surgeon who examined the plaintiff and provides a detailed, expert opinion that the injury was pre-existing and not caused by the incident. While both are medical professionals, the orthopedic surgeon's testimony, due to their specialized expertise and detailed analysis, would likely carry more weight of evidence in the eyes of the jury, making their opinion more persuasive regarding the cause of the injury.