Final answer:
A judge in a civil case must decide based on a preponderance of the evidence, while in criminal cases, the evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt. The reliability of evidence and testimonial injustice are important considerations, highlighting the challenges of truth determination in the legal system.
Step-by-step explanation:
In a civil case, a judge must base their decision or verdict on a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that one party's story seems more true than not. The plaintiff has the burden to prove the case beyond a preponderance of the evidence, where the evidence presented must weigh more on their side, convincing the jury or judge of the greater probability of truth.
Contrastingly, in a criminal case, the requirement is beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher burden of proof, leaving no doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Proving testimonial injustice or employing critical race theory might challenge traditional views on testimonial evidence, but in summary judgment, only clear-cut evidence weighs in.
Evaluative claims, such as those asserting justice or fairness, interpret facts rather than describe them. Theories of justification like Goldman's focus on reliable belief-forming processes, which might not always solve the Gettier problem, showing the complexity of establishing truth in legal settings.