State V. Davis – Capital Punishment and the burden of proof

The recent case involving the convicted police officer killer davis has brought the issue of burden of proof to the forefront of discussion again.

As we are constantly reminded, the burden of proof in a CRIMINAL matter is proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”.  Not absolute proof – but beyond REASONABLE doubt.

This is a high standard.  At stake of course is life and liberty – so it is understandably high . but is does not require absolute proof.  And the burden does not change just because the consequences might be death to the convicted person.

What is not discussed is the difference between the burden in criminal cases and the burden in CIVIL cases.  The burden is remarkably different and jurors must be reminded of that difference – especially in this day and age of “law and order “ and lawyer shows involving the burden for criminal cases . 

The burden in a civil case is “more likely than not – a preponderance of evidence”.   The reason is that it is not involving life or liberty – but money or equitable relief . 

The burden is much easier;

Consider this illustration:  if the burden of proof is plotted on a football field, a criminal prosecutor must move his team ( proof ) from his own goal line to the to 5 , or 3 or somewhere close to the other endzone.  He does not have to score a touch down, but it should be darn close.

In a civil case, the burden is met – and the plaintiff recovers – if the plaintiff lawyer ( the person bringing suit) takes the proof to JUST PAST THE FIFTY – nose of the ball crosses the 50 yard line.

IT is much different and some may think too easy for a plaintiff to recover.  Despite this distinction, sometimes jurors still require the equivalent of absolute proof but that is NOT THE LAW.