Opinion ID: 1191597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the origins and meanings of preponderance and clear and convincing evidence

Text: Preponderance derives from the Latin word praeponderare, which translates to outweigh, be of greater weight. 8 Oxford English Dictionary 1289 (1933). With regard to the burden of proof or persuasion in civil actions, it is generally accepted to mean the greater weight of evidence. At one time in the history of English law, the translation received a literal interpretation, with heads of witnesses being counted on each side, and each item of testimony receiving a quantitative value or weight. See Millar, in Engelmann, History of Continental Civil Procedure 41-49 (1927); 9 Wigmore, Evidence 424-31, § 2498 (Chadbourn rev 1981); 1 Holdsworth, History of English Law 302-04 (3d ed 1922). The term suggests to the jury that the evidence should be weighed on a scale and, frequently, trial judges will speak of weights and scales in explaining to jurors under this standard that they cannot speculate or guess what happened but that a party with the burden of persuasion in a civil case must prove what probably occurred. Uniform Jury Instructions (Civil), Nos. 21.01, 21.02 (Oregon CLE 1986), read, respectively: A party has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any claim made in that party's pleadings. In the absence of such proof, the party cannot prevail as to that claim. `Preponderance of the evidence' means the greater weight of evidence. It is such evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and is more probably true and accurate. If, upon any question in the case, the evidence appears to be equally balanced, or if you cannot say upon which side it weighs heavier, you must resolve that question against the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. [3] Mellinkoff, in his extensive work, The Language of the Law (1963), does not specifically trace the origins of the terms preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. However, he asserts that certain words, such as plaintiff, defendant, fee simple and lessee, are terms of art with a specific meaning, id. at 17, but that other language of the law is better characterized as equivocal because there is a deliberate choice of the flexible, id. at 21. Among a sample of words and phrases which are often used because they are flexible or despite their flexibility, are the words clear and convincing, id. at 21, and he lists among the cats and dogs of law language, defined and redefined, but not more precise for all of that, the words preponderance of the evidence, id. at 385. Thus, he tells us what we already know, that these terms are not precise standards but are words that do no more than characterize evidence. See Byers v. Santiam Ford, Inc., 281 Or. 411, 420 n 2, 574 P.2d 1122 (1978) (Lent, J., specially concurring). We now examine why there are two somewhat parallel words, clear and convincing, for a separate standard of proof. Mellinkoff traces this repetition of words to the origins of the English language. He explains that the English language started with the Celts when they entered the British Isles long before the birth of Christ and that Celtic was the dominant language of Britain until the Roman occupation in the first century A.D. The Latin interlude ended when the last Roman legions withdrew in 407 A.D. [4] The first Anglo-Saxon invaders in the middle fifth century encountered Celtic language, not Latin. Mellinkoff, supra at 37. He comments that, although the Celtic influence on the language of the law is slight, the period of the mingling of the Celts with their Anglo-Saxon conquerors does supply a clue to the origin of one peculiarity of our law language, which provides two words for one thought. He writes: One of the sources of tautology [that is, a needless repetition of words] is the prolonged presence of two languages side by side. England, for example, is peppered with place names which would read Hill-hill, or worse, except that the first hill is Celtic ( bre or cruc or penn ) and the other Old English ( hyll ), for instance, names like Breedon-on-the-Hill, Churchill, Penhill, Pendle Hill. It has been suggested that these formations indicate not knowledge but ignorance: a misunderstanding, in which the invader thinks penn is a place name, and adds his own hill for identification. Id. at 39. He concludes that the repetition is simply the result of a collision of languages and that [t]his penchant of English for coupling with foreign synonyms may be traced from Celtic through Scandinavian, Latin, and French. He concludes that It is by no means a complete explanation of law tautology, but the pattern begins early and stays late. Id. Mellinkoff continues his history of the language of the law: A separate language called English gets its name from the invading Angles and dates from around 450 A.D. In that mid-century the Angles and other Teutonic raiders (Saxons and Jutes) left their homes in what is now Denmark and northern Germany and began a serious penetration of the British Isles. Their influence makes English still a predominantly Teutonic speech. In turn, this Teutonic speech is a branch of the hypothetical Indo-European language that also spawned Latin, and then French as a dialect of Latin. So that at a very early date what was later to be English and what was later to be French were related.    Id. at 39. As examples of the law's habit of doubling words, Mellinkoff, at 121, lists: French English devise bequeath infant child larceny theft marriage wedding property goods pledge borrow He then comments that, sometimes for clarity, sometimes for emphasis and sometimes in keeping with the bilingual fashion of the day, English lawyers joined synonyms. A sampling of bilingual synonyms coupled in the law are: acknowledge and confess (Old English [OE]; French [F]) act and deed (F or Latin [L]; OE) deem and consider (OE; F) final and conclusive (F; L) fit and proper (OE; F) free and clear (OE; F) give, devise, and bequeath (OE; F; OE) goods and chattels (OE; F) had and received (OE; F) in lieu, in place, instead, and in substitution of (F; F; OE; F or late L) keep and maintain (OE; F) maintenance and upkeep (F; E) made and provided (OE; L) mind and memory (OE; F) new and novel (OE; F) pardon and forgive (F; OE) peace and quiet (F; L) right, title, and interest (OE; OE; F) save and except (F; L) shun and avoid (OE; F) will and testament (OE; L) Id. at 122. Such a combination of languages is found in the clear and convincing standard of proof, although this pair of words does not repeat a single concept. Outside the law, a proposition may be very clear but unconvincing, and murky statements may be persuasive in the absence of criticism or contrary assertions. In short, clear describes the character of unambiguous evidence, whether true or false; convincing describes the effect of evidence on an observer. Clear is a Norman French word which means of words, statements, explanations, meanings: Easy to understand, fully intelligible, free from obscurity of sense; of a vision, concept, notion, view, memory, etc.; Distinct, unclouded, free from confusion. 2 Oxford English Dictionary, supra at 475. The use of the term clear by itself after the Norman Conquest could have created great confusion due to its close association with the native English word clean, which meant without anything left or omitted, without any exception that may vitiate the statement, without qualification wholly, entirely, quite absolutely. Id. at 482. Convincing is an English word derived from the Latin convincere. It means to overcome, to conquer, convict; to overcome (a person) in argument, to prove wrong, confute; to cause (a person) to admit, as establish to his satisfaction, that which is advanced in argument; that which convinces, that convicts, proves guilty, that which brings conviction to the mind. Id. at 950-51. The use of similar terms, one Norman French, one English, arose in English history around the time of William the Conqueror and the Norman Conquest in 1066. King William I encouraged and maintained the loyalty and obligations system which had bound subjects to the kings of England. He made great use of certain trusted Norman followers, but these prelates were required to rule within a native English framework of law and custom. William I, a Norman, recognized that the defeated English people were much more likely to accept their defeat and accept the new social order imposed by the conqueror if the defeated were not the only ones making adjustments. So successful was he in this endeavor that, in the last serious revolt of his reign, it was the Normans who rebelled and Englishmen who fought for the king. 23 Encyclopaedia Britannica 530-32 (1971). William I wanted to keep the affairs of church and state separate. He was determined, as a matter of policy, that in his dominions the church would be subordinate to the state. While he was compelled to concede ample room to the canons of the episcopal law, he insisted that the ecclesiastical courts assume no rights in England that they had not exercised in Normandy. Thus, he created a system of ecclesiastical and common law courts which used both the Norman French and English languages. Reppy, Ordinance of William the Conqueror 1-5 (1954). William sent commissioners to hold his local courts. Not only did these men bring the king's authority more directly than ever before into the shire courts of England but, in their conduct of the cases over which they presided, they made use of a method of proof which was to have great influence upon English judicial practice at a later date. It was in these trials that, for the first time, use was consistently made of the jury as a group of men appointed by the court to give a collective verdict upon oath. William I employed such juries consistently and, between 1066 and 1087, their use became a characteristic feature of his judicial administration. See Douglas, William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England 305-10 (1964). In furtherance of his use of the jury system, and as part of his assimilation policy, William I directed that, where possible, Norman French words be joined with Anglo-Saxon words for purposes of effectuating the law. 1 Pollock & Maitland, The History of English Law, chs 2, 3 (1895). [5] In trying to understand the Norman French and English terms, of course, we need to examine not only their origins but also the usage given to them by judicial decisions.