4 ms·
That case would have been decided under the "preponderance of evidence" standard, since it's a civil trial, not the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard (used for
by jimrandomh 10y ago
That case would have been decided under the "preponderance of evidence" standard, since it's a civil trial, not the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard (used for criminal trials) or the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standard (which is exclusively for death penalty cases).
- jordigh 10y agoI see! So is it reasonable to say that the jury "proved" that there was no problem? edit: Hah, judging by the downvotes, it's not! Hehe, this is the first time I'm super-happy to be downvoted. :-)