That’s how it is in most civil cases. In criminal cases it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases it’s preponderance of evidence which is basically more than 50% sure.
The case is still a load of shit and the hag should be paying Trump, just saying the burden of proof isn’t unusual.
I mean thats a distinction without a difference...they are going to vote based on what they think after having heard the evidence. This is how preponderance works. This is why civil cases outcomes can be wonky sometimes
That’s how it is in most civil cases. In criminal cases it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases it’s preponderance of evidence which is basically more than 50% sure.
The case is still a load of shit and the hag should be paying Trump, just saying the burden of proof isn’t unusual.
The judge just said if you think there is better than a 50% chance. He did not say if you think the evidence points to a better than 50% chance.
I mean thats a distinction without a difference...they are going to vote based on what they think after having heard the evidence. This is how preponderance works. This is why civil cases outcomes can be wonky sometimes