> "Civil issues are resolved based on the preponderance of the evidence, not innocent until proven guilty." ... "Neither the accuser nor the accused has the presumption of being right or the burden of proof."

This is incorrect. "Innocent until proven guilty" and "preponderance of evidence" are not two levels on one scale. They are distinct legal principles which can be applied at the same time or separately. Both, however, relate to the burden of proof and differ between criminal and civil trials, which is probably the source of the confusion.

Crudely: one standard is about what happens without sufficient evidence, the other is about how much evidence is sufficient.

---

The burden of proof is a general concept of which party in a trial must prove their claims, and to what standard. "Presumption of innocence" is one possible answer to "which party", while "preponderance of evidence" is a possible answer to "what standard".

The party bearing the burden of proof for an issue is the party which must provide evidence. Simply: if everyone at the trial rests without offering any evidence, whoever bears the burden of proof loses. In criminal trials, this is the presumption of innocence you mention. In civil trials, the matter is more complicated, but in effect the plaintiff bears the (initial) burden. In asset forfeiture cases, infamously, the government bears the burden in the initial trial (against the asset), but the owner bears the burden of proof as a third-party claimant if they want their property back.

(It's emphatically not true that neither side has the burden of proof in civil trials. There is always a burden of proof when a claim is being made, to determine what happens if no evidence is provided. However, civil cases frequently involve affirmative defenses, in which each party bears the burden of proof for the claims made by that party. Both, not neither.)

The standard of proof, meanwhile, is the hurdle which must be cleared by whoever bears the burden of proof. It's how convincing their claim must be to be accepted. In civil cases, yes, this is a "preponderance of evidence", interpreted as the claim being more likely than not. In criminal cases, this is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that's on the same scale as preponderance. Other standards exist outside of trial settings: in various contexts US law employs standards like "some evidence" and "reasonable suspicion".

---

I'm not (just) being pedantic here. If we're talking about borrowing a legal standard for deciding against someone in a dispute, I think it's very important that we're clear on what we mean.

It's possible to vary both the size and placement of the burden. We could believe the accuser (burden on the accused), but hold the accused to a mere "some credible evidence" standard for their defense. We could believe the accused and demand evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", or lower that to "preponderance of evidence", or even further. Or we could even use some standard not borrowed from the courts.

But right now, almost no one clarifies what they mean. The results of moving the burden will be very different from the results of lessening the burden, and it's important to understand what we're proposing.