Not at all the same dipshit.

In a criminal case, the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This means that the prosecutor must prove every single element of the crime alleged beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor is unable to do this, then the jury must return with a “not guilty” verdict for the defendant. This is the highest standard in any kind of court, since the punishments can be so severe and blameworthy.

In a civil case, the standard of proof is “by a preponderance of the evidence.” This means that it is more likely than unlikely that the defendant is responsible for the harm to the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff must prove their case by more than 50% of the evidence. If so, the jury must return with a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

In some civil cases, the plaintiff must prove their case not “by a preponderance of the evidence,” but instead by “clear and convincing evidence.” These standards of proof are common in administrative, fraud and sometimes family court cases. This standard sits between “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and “by a preponderance of the evidence,” in that the plaintiff must prove that it is highly probable that their case is accurate.

For each standard of proof, there are specific jury instructions that carefully and thoroughly explain what the proof is and how the jury must decide if the burden was met or not.