Also known as: preponderance of the evidence standard · preponderance of evidence standard · preponderance standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A civil evidentiary standard under which the party bearing the burden of persuasion must establish that a contested fact is more likely true than not. The standard applies in proceedings where life or liberty is not at stake. A criminal conviction satisfies the higher beyond-a-reasonable-doubt threshold and therefore conclusively establishes the same fact in the civil action.
After Glenn's fatal shooting, his estate petitioned the probate court to bar Bernice from the annuity she had been named to receive days earlier. An eyewitness placed Bernice at the scene arguing with Glenn moments before the shots, and Bernice had already been convicted of aggravated assault arising from the same confrontation. The court found by a preponderance that Bernice feloniously and intentionally killed Glenn, disqualifying her from the proceeds.
The state charged a minor with theft and sought to prove the act occurred. The court applied the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required by due process rather than preponderance. Because the evidence failed to meet that higher threshold, the court dismissed the petition.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Parents sued a pharmaceutical company alleging that a drug caused birth defects. The plaintiffs offered expert testimony linking the drug to the injuries. The court weighed the testimony under the preponderance standard to decide whether the drug more likely than not caused the defects.
After arrest on felony charges, the prosecutor sought continued detention. The court applied the preponderance standard in the related civil forfeiture proceeding to decide ownership of seized property. Finding the evidence sufficient under that standard, the court ordered forfeiture.
After a jury convicted the defendant of drug distribution, the government sought an enhanced sentence based on drug quantity in a related civil penalty action. The court found the quantity by a preponderance of the evidence and imposed the higher civil fine.
The prosecution offered statements made by an alleged co-conspirator. The court determined by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the declarant and defendant were members. The statements were therefore admitted against the defendant.
The preponderance standard requires only that a fact be shown more likely than not. The criminal standard demands proof to a moral certainty. Because civil proceedings do not threaten life or liberty, the lower threshold applies.
Supporting sources
Yes. An acquittal means the prosecution failed to meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. The civil proceeding may still find the killing more likely than not under the preponderance standard and bar the slayer from inheritance.
Supporting sources
Yes. A final conviction for the felonious and intentional killing satisfies the higher criminal standard and therefore conclusively establishes the person as the slayer in the civil proceeding without further proof.
Supporting sources
The party bearing the burden loses. The preponderance standard requires the evidence to tip the scales, however slightly, in that party's favor.
Supporting sources
…there to be an erroneous verdict in the defendant's favor than for there to be an erroneous verdict in the plaintiff's favor. A preponderance of the evidence standard therefore seems peculiarly appropriate for, as explained most sensibly,[^maj-9] it simply requires the trier of fact "to believe that the existence of a fact is more probable than its…