Final answer:
The 'preponderance of the evidence' standard in civil litigation and arbitration requires the plaintiff to show that their claims are more likely true than not. It contrasts with the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard in criminal cases, which requires a much higher degree of certainty. In some civil cases, this standard can lead to summary judgments when one party's evidence significantly outweighs the other's.
Step-by-step explanation:
In legal proceedings, different standards of proof are applied based on the context of the case. In civil litigation, the standard typically required is a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the plaintiff must provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the claims are more likely true than not, essentially tipping the scales to over 50% certainty in the eyes of the judge or jury. This burden is lower than the reasonable doubt standard required in criminal cases, where the prosecution must establish the defendant's guilt to such a certainty that there would be no reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational person.
The preponderance of the evidence is especially relevant in arbitration hearings, where the arbitrator must be convinced by this standard in order to decide in favor of the plaintiff. It is used as well in situations such as the rational basis test in discrimination cases, and notably, this standard is not sufficient for the higher stakes of criminal court, notably in capital homicide cases or where the unanimity rule applies, requiring a jury to be in complete agreement for a conviction.
Lastly, within the context of summary judgments in civil cases, a judge may decide without a full trial if the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that one party has no substantial case. This demonstrates the application and importance of evidentiary standards in the legal process, with the preponderance of the evidence playing a key role in civil matters, including arbitration.