Denver criminal defense lawyer / preponderance of the evidence

So on the Denver criminal defense lawyer blog I've been looking at a variety of burdens of proof. Obviously the most crucial one in the criminal justice system is reasonable doubt. However, I've forgotten another crucial one. The "preponderance of the evidence" generally simply refers to the majority. It means there is a 50.00000000000000001 percent chance that something happened. This is the standard of proof used to determine fault in civil law cases. If you can prove you were harmed by just a bare majority of the evidence, you get damages. In criminal law, obviously the ultimate burden of proof is different. However, the "preponderance" standard still has its place.

For example, there are certain things your Denver criminal defense lawyer can use to help you get acquitted called affirmative defenses. These state that even if the prosecution actually did prove every part of the crime, you should be acquitted anyway. One of these is self defense in murder cases (this is the case in some states, I don't think it is true in every state). That means even if you intentionally kill somebody, and the prosecution can prove you did it, you can still be acquitted if you can prove self-defense. However, the prosecution does not have to prove "no self defense" beyond a reasonable doubt. It is up to you and your Denver criminal defense lawyer to prove that you acted in self-defense. So the absence of any evidence about self defense will mean you get convicted. At the same time, you don't have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Just having a sliver more evidence than the prosecutor will be good enough. So preponderance of the evidence is one example of where a burden of proof that is not beyond a reasonable doubt can be decisive in a criminal case.