Lawyer here. In the U.S., the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies only in criminal prosecutions, not in civil disputes. The thinking is that, before th

Lawyer here. In the U.S., the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies only in criminal prosecutions, not in civil disputes. The thinking is that, before the police may lock someone away for more than a few hours for allegedly committing a crime, or permanently confiscating his or her money as a fine for criminal behavior, we the people insist that the authorities must demonstrate, with properly-admissible evidence, that reasonable minds could not differ about the defendant's guilt. In contrast, in civil trials the plaintiff need only convince the fact-finder, whether jury or judge, that the plaintiff's legally-cognizable claim is more likely than not to be factually justified, even though reasonable minds might well differ. That's what's known as the preponderance of the evidence standard. (Think of the image of the scales of justice: If the plaintiff fails to adduce enough properly-admissible evidence to tip the scales in favor of the plaintiff's version of events, then the plaintiff loses. This includes cases where the scales are equally balanced, referred to as the evidence being in "equipoise.") Exception: In a few special types of civil case, such as allegations of fraud, the plaintiff typically must demonstrate factual support for its claim by clear and convincing evidence, which the U.S. Supreme Court has defined as "plac[ing] in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of its factual contentions are 'highly probable.'" [0] Another exception: By statute in the U.S., a claim that a patent is invalid or unenforceable must be supported by facts proved by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this standard in the Microsoft v. i4i case, 564 U.S. 91 (2011). [1] Incidentally, in a criminal trial, when a jury returns a verdict of "not guilty," it's a misnomer: The verdict should really be "not proved beyond a reasonable doubt." (I understand that this is in fact a permissible form of verdict in Scotland.) The defendant could still be held liable for damages — but not imprisoned — in a civil trial under a preponderance standard. That's what happened to OJ Simpson: He was acquitted in his criminal trial, because the jury found that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Afterwards, though, the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman successfully sued Simpson in civil court for wrongful death. The families persuaded a different jury that Simpson was more likely than not to have killed the two. The jury awarded the families some USD $33 million in damages. Much of Simpson's property — including his Heisman Trophy — was seized and sold at auction to pay (part of) the damage award. [2] [0] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10230453689072625052 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=102304536890726... [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18084304855984673909 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=180843048559846... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson#Nicole_Brown_Simpson_and_Ron_Goldman_murders_and_trials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson#Nicole_Brown_Sim...