Posted By:
Kenny ColeJay,
I was a chemistry major before I became a lawyer, so I had a fair amount of math background too. However, there are pretty substantial differences between the "hard" sciences and a civil lawsuit. In a civil case, at least one where allegations of fraud aren't involved, the plaintiff normally need only establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, i.e., that what he says happened is more probably true than not true. That's a far cry from a mathematical certainty. The closest thing the law has to the certainty requirement are criminal cases, where the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, even there, some cases are simply swearing matches. If the jury believes that the complaining witness is telling the truth and the defendant is lying, you can get a conviction, despite the fact that two separate versions of "the truth" have been presented. When the facts are disputed, the jury gets to decide which version is right. They can decide that one side is right even if the Pope and every other religous leader of significance swears that the other side's story is the correct one. That's the way the system was designed, and that's the way it is supposed to work. It doesn't always, but it generally does. In that regard, you would be very surprised at how adept most juries are at spotting when they are getting fed a line of BS.