Court Procedures / Evidence / Service

I cannot speak to STATE-specific laws or standards but I can tell you about general principles for standards of proof in many states for arrests and prosecutions in criminal cases versus the standard of proof in civil cases.

For the police to arrest, they generally have to have “probable cause” that the crime took place. Probable cause is basically a good faith belief, or good cause to believe that it happened.

In general, the standard of proof for criminal offenses is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This means that when a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the defendant to be convicted. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has any reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. This is a very high burden, and if a prosecutor does not believe there is enough evidence to meet this standard of proof and secure a conviction, he or she may not bring a case against a criminal offender.

In general, a person may be able to sue another person in civil court for money damages if what is known as a tort (a civil wrong) was committed against him/her. There are specific torts, which each have specific factors that must be proven (for example, one such tort may be intentional infliction of emotional distress, another may be assault or battery - and there are many others). Civil suits require a lower burden of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Many civil cases must be proven by a “preponderance of the evidence,” which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way. It may be helpful to speak with a lawyer in STATE about whether there would be enough evidence in your situation to file a civil suit. Here is a link to lawyers in STATE: LINK