answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

In any civil law matter, the burden of proof is always based on the preponderence of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable double like criminal law, and it rests on that of the Plaintiff, not the state as in criminal law.

User Avatar

Wiki User

16y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

The burden of proof in a civil trial is the preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

Prosecutor always has the burden of proof. If you offer an affirmative defense, you have to present evidence to prove it. Prosecution has the burden to prove you don't have an affirmative defense.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Who has the burden of proof with an affirmative defense?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

7 Who has the burden of proof with an affirmative defense?

The burden of proof for an affirmative defense is the responsibility of the defense.


What are lack of proof defenses?

Lack of Proof Defenses are: 1. Not enough Burden of Proof (beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone) 2. Some affirmative defense used by the defense a. an affirmative defense is: new facts by the defense must be prove and they can also use other alibis to help them with their case (witness could say that they were intoxicated, insanity and other statutory defenses)


What is the difference between an affirmative defense and a denial?

A denial does just that it denies the Plaintiff's allegations and the burden of proof is still on the Plaintiff to prove the prima facie case.An affirmative defense does not deny the allegations but asserts a defense that would negate the legal effect of the Plaintiff's cause of action. The burden of proof in an affirmative defense is on the Defendant.An example would be a breach of contract case. The Plaintiff claims that he had a contract with the Defendant, and Defendant did not perform the contract. A denial would say "We never had a contract" and the Plaintiff would have to prove the existence of a contract. An affirmative defense would say "Yes, we had a contract, but that was 20 years ago thus the action is barred by the 10 year statute of limitations." Then the burden of proof is on the Defendant to show that the contract falls outside of the statute of limitations period.


Who has the burden of proof in an insanity defense?

In an insanity defense, the defense must prove that the defendant is insane.


Did burden of proof on the issue of causation rests on the prosecution?

No. The prosecution only has to prove that you COMMITTED the offense. The issue of WHY (the cause) you did it is not a prosecutorial responsibility.


What changed in the practice of Law that shifted the burden of proof of insanity to the defendant?

the Federal Insanity Defense Reform Act


To what extent should the burden of proof be task upon the affirmative to prove?

I don't want to guess at what is being asked. Please re-word the question and re-submit


What is the highest burden of proof?

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. They must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. The defense only needs to raise reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. If jurors believe the defendant may have committed the crime, but have reasonable doubt then they must find the defendant not guilty.


Does the defendant carry the burden of proof?

No. The plaintiff has the burden of proof.


When was The Burden of Proof created?

The Burden of Proof was created in 1990.


What is highest burden of proof?

The highest burden of proof is "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt."


Who has the burden of proof in an alibi defense?

(in the US) The prosecution ALWAYS bears the burden of proof to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, however, if the defendant uses an alibi defense, REALISTICALLY-speaking, they are going to have to furnish some credible evidence that they WERE incapable of being present at the scene of the offense at the time of its occurrence.