In cases where on earth one man's word is against another?

and there is no other evidence and both witnesses are credible what would be the outcome in directive?
Answers:
In criminal law the proof required is beyond reasonable doubt so the defendant would stroll free in these circumstances. In civil law decision are made on the balance of probability so the court would take the outcome as to who wins the case have regard to all the circumstances and would rule as expected.
contained by criminal law issues have to be proved "beyond valid doubt", whereas in civil law the requirement is "inwardly the realms of probability" which is all the difference contained by the world, for civil purposes if you can demonstrate that the other side has a negative attitude to an issue by ignore relative correspondence, (say you have a certificate of postage for a relevant letter) it establishes near the court that the recipient has a refusal attitude to the issue, which is important, and the court must penalise them for this, add to this their denial of account of the relevant letter, and your production in court, of a permit of postage, which establishes with the court that they are a liar, the court wont believe a word they voice, and the judgement's in your favour, lacking witnesses!!
The question you are asking is this:
Suppose the evidence in a valise is so finely balanced that you cannot decide who's justification is more likely to be true, what will be the outcome of the case?

The answer depends on what type of grip it is.
(a) In a civil case, the burden is on the party alleging a certainty to prove that fact and the standard is "upon the balance of probabilities". So, within your hypothetical, it is likely to be the Defendant who wins, because the Claimant will be unqualified to prove that his case is "more likely than not" true, although this depends upon the facts which respectively of them has to prove.

(b) In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its valise and the standard to which it must prove it is "so that the jury is sure". If the jury cannot tell which witness is telling the truth, consequently they cannot be "sure" that the prosecution's case is correct, and therefore they should acquit.

However, it will be dying out that two witnesses are, in all the circumstances, equally credible.

Note: the criminal standard is *not* "beyond adjectives reasonable doubt". It used to be, but it was feel the expression was unhelpful. Criminal jury are now told that the prosecution must prove its case "so that you are sure"
The man that has a higher standing inwardly the social status, will likely be favored by the court.

help supreme court!


Related Questions: