This idea of weight of proof has been applied by some legal scholars to assess the sufficiency of evidence to meet legal standards of evidence. [25] In the simplest case, we can consider the weight of legal determination of the facts as the amount of evidence before the courts. Weight is distinct from probability. The weight of proof may be high and the mathematical probability low, as in the situation where the prosecution presents a lot of evidence that tends to incriminate the accused, but the defence has an unshakable alibi (Cohen 1986: 641). Conversely, the evidence presented in a case may establish a sufficient degree of probability – high enough to exceed the threshold of proof assumed for the mathematical design of the standard of proof – and not yet have sufficient weight. In the highly controversial Gate Crasher paradox, the only evidence available shows that the defendant was one of a thousand spectators at a rodeo show and that only four hundred and ninety-nine tickets were issued. The defendant is sued by the organizer for door collision. The mathematical probability that the defendant was a barrier breaker is 0.501 and thus meets the probabilistic threshold of civil liability. But according to the principle of negation of mathematical probability, there is a probability of 0.499 that the defendant paid for his entry.
In these circumstances, it is intuitively unfair to hold him accountable (Cohen 1977:75). One possible explanation for his lack of responsibility is that the evidence is too weak or underweight. Evidence may only be presented in legal proceedings to prove a fact if the fact is relevant. Relevance is a relational concept. No facts are relevant in themselves; It is only relevant in relation to another fact. The term “likely” is often used to describe this relationship. We see two examples of this in the following known definitions. According to Stephen (1886:2, emphasis added): In everyday language, the terms “evidence” and “proof” are often used interchangeably in everyday language. However, a distinction must be made between evidence and evidence.
Evidence is data or facts that help us determine the reality or existence of something. A comprehensive collection of evidence can prove a claim. Evidence is a conclusion as to whether a particular fact is true or not. In the case of a court, it is up to a judge or jury to decide, based on the evidence presented, whether or not a fact has been proven. In Director, Office of Workers` Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, the Supreme Court has stated that the “burden of proof” is ambiguous because it has always referred to two different burdens: the burden of persuasion and the burden of production. [40] This section repeats the fourth conclusion. As a reminder, something is accepted as evidence by the court – it is, to use Montrose`s term, obtained as evidence in judicial proceedings – only if three fundamental conditions are met: relevance, materiality and admissibility (Montrose 1954).
These three eligibility conditions are examined in turn below. The role of the court is then to recognize, in the case of serious allegations, that their seriousness generally means that they are inherently unlikely, so that to be satisfied that a fact is more likely than unlikely, the evidence must be of good quality. But the standard of proof remains “balance of probabilities.” It may seem obvious that there must be a legal concept of proof different from the ordinary notion of evidence. After all, there are many special rules in the law about what can and cannot be presented as evidence in court, how evidence must be presented and for what purpose it can be used, about the strength or sufficiency of the evidence required to present evidence, and so on. But the law is silent on some crucial issues. To decide factual disputes in court, jury or at a hearing, the judge must rely on extrajudicial principles. There have been academic attempts at systematic analysis of the functioning of these principles in the legal investigation of facts (Wigmore 1937; Anderson, Schum & Twining, 2009). These principles, it is argued, are general in nature.
Since the logic of “drawing conclusions from evidence to test hypotheses and justify conclusions” is governed by the same principles in different disciplines (Twining and Hampsher-Monk 2003:4), ambitious projects have been undertaken to develop an interdisciplinary framework for evidence analysis (Schum 1994) and to build an interdisciplinary “integrated science of evidence” (Dawid, Twining and Vasilaki, 2011; cf. Trollers, 2008). Proof is also a requirement in civil litigation, although the standard proof it must satisfy is not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Instead, the standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence, meaning that it must be more likely than not that something happened. In general, plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must prove that the allegations they claim are accurate, although sometimes the burden of proof is shifted to the defendants. There is another paradox in the mathematical interpretation of the standard of proof. This is the “paradox of conjunction”. To succeed in a civil case (or prosecution), the plaintiff (or prosecutor) must prove the essential facts – or “elements” – that constitute the civil suit (or criminal charge) before the court (see discussion of “materiality” in section 2.2 above). Imagine a claim under the law of negligence based on two elements: a breach of duty of care by the defendant (element A) and causing damage to the plaintiff (element B).
To win the case, the plaintiff is legally required to prove A and B. For simplicity, A and B should be independent events. Suppose the proof proves A with a probability of 0.6 and B with a probability of 0.7. In the mathematical interpretation of the civil standard of proof, the plaintiff should be successful in his action, since the probability exceeds 0.5 in relation to each of the elements. However, according to the rule of multiplication of conventional probability, the probability that A and B are both true is the product of their respective probabilities; In this example, it is only 0.42 (obtained by multiplying 0.6 by 0.7). Thus, the overall likelihood is greater that the defendant deserves to win than the plaintiff deserves to win, and yet the judgment is rendered in favour of the plaintiff. Evidence is unprocessed data, material or information. In the legal context, it is usually collected and presented by a party to a case to prove or refute a particular legal conclusion.