Is the evidence presented in a securities arbitration hearing the same as in court?

No, the evidence presented in a securities arbitration hearing is not the same as in court. In a securities arbitration hearing, evidence is largely gathered through written documents, such as depositions or interrogatories, or through witness testimony. Meanwhile, in court, evidence is usually in the form of physical evidence, such as fingerprints, video recordings, or other tangible items. Additionally, in securities arbitration hearings, the evidence is presented to a panel of arbitrators, as opposed to a judge and jury in court. The standards of proof and admissibility of evidence in both proceedings are also not the same. In a securities arbitration hearing, the standard of proof is the preponderance of evidence, which means that the arbitrators can make a decision if it is more likely that the evidence is true than not. In court proceedings, the standard of proof is higher and known as beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the rules of evidence in securities arbitration hearings are not as strict as in court proceedings. When it comes to the admissibility of evidence, the arbitrators have more discretion in deciding what pieces of evidence are relevant and reliable enough to consider, while judges are more limited in what evidence can be admitted to court. Overall, the evidence presented in a securities arbitration hearing in Washington is not the same as that presented in court. Arbitrators are given more leeway in establishing what evidence can be considered and the standards of proof are lower, meaning that less evidence is needed to make a decision.

Related FAQs

Is the evidence presented in a securities arbitration hearing the same as in court?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts