Burden of Proof

(redirected from Standard of proof)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial.

Burden of Proof


(Latin, onus probandi), in legal procedure, the rule by which the obligation to prove particular circumstances of a case is distributed among participants in the case. Under socialist law the distribution of burden of proof reflects the competitive nature of the judicial process and activates the court’s routine.

The law of the USSR establishes that each party in a civil trial must prove the circumstances on which he relies in substantiating his claims or defense. For example, the plaintiff must prove the circumstances constituting the grounds of the suit and the facts attesting to the defendant’s violation of his rights; the defendant must prove the grounds of his defense. In each specific case the scope of facts subject to proof by those participating in the case is determined by the norms that regulate the particular legal relationship (for example, in a suit for redress of an injury the burden of proof in showing the absence of guilt falls on the defendant). In suits relating to various types of contracts, the responsibility for proving violation of an obligation rests with the creditor; the debtor must prove the facts that confirm the fulfillment of his obligations. The court has the right to direct persons participating in the trial to submit additional evidence, and it may, on its own initiative, gather evidence to determine the true relationship between the parties. In a criminal trial, the law prohibits the court, procurator, investigator, or the person who conducted the inquiry from transferring the burden of proof to the accused.

The term “burden of proof is used in bourgeois civil procedure. This burden falls entirely on the parties, and the court plays no active part in questions of proof.

References in periodicals archive ?
My reliance on criminal law is only this: my terminology distinguishes burden of proof from standard of proof, and legal burden from evidentiary burden, in the same way that Canadian law (both criminal and civil) does.
If the Fifth Circuit agrees that Gubser has standing and therefore remands the matter to the district court to issue a declaratory judgement, it is almost inevitable that either Gubser or the government will appeal to the Fifth Circuit the district court's declaration as to the appropriate standard of proof. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit may well become the first Federal Court of Appeals to rule on this important evidentiary issue regarding civil penalties for willful FBAR violations.
Even leaving aside the ambiguity relating to the application of different standards of proof to the establishment of the actus reus of genocide ("fully conclusive" evidence) and the mens rea of genocide ("the only reasonable inference"), the position of the Court is problematic because it does not justify the application in the framework of state responsibility of such a high standard of proof as is applied in the establishment of individual criminal responsibility.
There must be a better, and perhaps simpler, way to conceive the standard of proof. The mathematical theory of belief functions provides an alternative superior to traditional probability theory and to the newer approach of relative plausibility.
As a result of the wide variety of enabling Acts (3) that give jurisdiction to SAT, a slightly different emphasis is discernable in the Tribunal's conduct of proceedings in regard to the burden of proof and the standard of proof. It appears that in regard to both the burden of proof and the standard of proof, the SAT proceedings are varied and depend on the particular subject matter before SAT--be it a review of a decision; an original commercial or civil dispute; a vocational disciplinary matter; a guardianship and administration application; or a complaint of discrimination under equal opportunity legislation.
of varying the standard of proof in civil litigation.
We purport to decide civil cases according to a more-probable-than-not standard of proof. We would expect this standard to take into account the rule of conjunction, which states that the probability of two independent events occurring together is the product of the probability of each event occurring separately.
Computers have already reduced to minutes what it used to take investigators days to accomplish, and arguing for a lesser standard of proof just because an e-mail was received and opened three months ago instead of three days ago is hardly persuasive.
Paper documents were the standard of proof in law, business, and everyday life throughout the twentieth century, but the fairly recent conversion of nearly all of our written records into digitized data stored in computers is a whole new paradigm with some never-before-seen challenges, according to UCLA information-studies professor Jean-Francois Blanchette.
The lower standard of proof for civil orders such as the CPI means they can be put in place in days or even hours.
(4) Many families involved in these claims assert that the test cases satisfied the court's unique standard of proof, whereas the federal government argues that the cases failed to meet even a low standard.

Full browser ?