Burden of Proof

(redirected from Preponderance of evidence)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial.
Related to Preponderance of evidence: burden of proof, Clear and convincing evidence
The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.

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.

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). © 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
The preponderance of evidence standard requires a hearing panel or administrator to decide whether it was more likely than not that the alleged violation took place.
"The preponderance of evidence tells us that the target population would benefit from lower cholesterol," asserted Jerome Cohen, a consultant for Bristol-Myers.
For example, while convicting an individual on a criminal charge requires proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," landlords may evict residents based on a single violation and with only a preponderance of evidence. That is, if evidence exists to prove that residents "probably" violated the lease agreement, they can be evicted.
Supreme Court ruled that the "preponderance of evidence standard" rather than the more demanding "clear and convincing evidence standard" applies to all bankruptcy exceptions to discharge, including nondischargeable fraud.
Moreover, a preponderance of evidence standard gives way to an evidence to support the finding standard," Mr.
Given this, and recent outbreaks of mumps in Central America, "the preponderance of evidence points to the major influx at our Southwest border being, at minimum, a significant contributing factor of these occurrences," she said.
Fajardo explained: "When a person is acquitted on a criminal charge, it does not necessarily follow that he is likewise absolved of civil liability." "Conviction of criminal charge requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, while a judgment of liability on the civil charge requires only a preponderance of evidence," the IBP president said.
This deliberate policy meets the moral preponderance of evidence as a war crime.
To be discarded, too, as a consequence are the usual judicial review thresholds of 'substantial evidence' (used in administrative cases), 'preponderance of evidence' (used in civil cases), 'proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt' (used in criminal cases), and 'grave abuse of discretion' (used in reviewing acts of all agencies of the government).
And it does." That essentially argues from the preponderance of evidence, something which is insufficient to explain rare events.