"Every Spouse's Evidence": Availability of the Adverse Spousal Testimonial Privilege in Federal Civil Trials

The standard of proof applied in civil trials is the preponderance of evidence, often said to be met when a proposition is shown to be more than 50% likely to be true. A number of theorists have argued that this 50%+ standard is too weak—there are circumstances in which a court should find that the defendant is not liable, even though the evidence presented makes it more than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. In this paper, I will recapitulate the familiar arguments for this thesis, before defending a more radical one: The 50%+ standard is also too strong—there are circumstances in which a court should find that a defendant is liable, even though the evidence presented makes it less than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. I will argue that the latter thesis follows naturally from the former once we accept that the parties in a civil trial are to be treated equally. I will conclude by sketching an alternative interpretation of the civil standard of proof

Download Full-text

Contestația privind tergiversarea procesului. Aspecte teoretice şi practice

Analele Universitării din București Drept ◽

10.31178/aubd.2021.17 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 (2021) ◽

pp. 259-287

Author(s):

Tudor BURLACU ◽

Keyword(s):

Civil Procedure ◽

The State ◽

Legal Institution ◽

Civil Trials ◽

Effective Remedy

"This article examines the legal institution of the challenge against the delaying of proceedings, having as premise the raison d’être of this institution. The Romanian legislator took a first step towards conducting proceedings if not within an optimal and foreseeable period, at least within a reasonable one, by amending the Code of Civil Procedure to introduce the institution of the challenge meant to expedite the conducting of civil trials. Throughout this article we will look at how the challenge against the delaying of proceedings has been regulated, but in particular at the problems that have arisen in practice. Finally, several proposals de lege ferenda are put forward, which should be implemented by the legislator in order for this legal institution to achieve the purpose for which it has been adopted, followed by a few conclusions reflecting the state of play of this institution, but especially answering the question of whether the challenge against the delaying of proceedings is an effective remedy, within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention, against the excessive duration of proceedings."

Download Full-text