Page 25 - index

24 About Genealogical Standards of Evidence

the rule is that ancestry may be established by apr@oizderana or
greater weight of the evinen~e."~ In contrast, the rules of evidence
in criminal cases require a judge or jury to be convinced beyond
a reasonable doubt. This last phrase is much stronger, but is
rarely used in genealogical arguments simply because it implies
absolute proof. If ~7ou have 77 out of 100 pieces of data to
"prove" your genealogical point, one doubt remains. Of
course, you have an outstanding preponderance of evidence, but
not absolute "proof." POE is also known by the phrase "balance
of probability" in some Canadian jurisdictions.
Another legal term is the usage of "clear and convincing
evidence," which seems to be more applicable. However,
this phrase in law does not have the same definition in all
jurisdictions, and only serves to illustrate the imprecision
of adopting terms from a different discipline. The borrowing
of court rules seemed to give a genealogical measurement
or standard for drawing sound conclusions about a
relationship, event or identity. But, and this is a big "but,"
if you have evidence that only indirectly answers your
questions, or contradictory information about identity or
relationship, POE means you only need a slight balance
one way or the other to make your conclusion. \Vhen clear
and convincing evidence does not meet the same standard
in all legal jurisdictions, how could genealogists agree on
the level of required proof?
Serious genealogists began to question this standard,
believing that self-demanding family researchers expect a
higher level of evidence than POE for arguing iden-
tifications or relationships, that a "preponderance" requiring

Noel C. Stevenson, "The Rules of Evidence: il, Standard for Proving
Pedigrees" in Genealogicul Research: L\lethods and Sources, Vol 1, hlilton
Rubincam, editor, p 40 (The American Society of Genealogists, 1980).