Are there any differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing?

Yes, there are differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing. In a traditional court, there are generally two categories of evidence allowed: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is evidence that directly supports a fact in dispute, such as an eyewitness account or a document. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tends to support a fact in dispute, but does not directly prove it, such as expert testimony. In contrast, the rules of evidence in a securities arbitration hearing are generally more relaxed. In securities arbitration, any evidence that is relevant and reliable can be admitted. This includes evidence that would not be allowed in a traditional court, such as hearsay. Hearsay is a statement made outside of court by someone other than the witness who is testifying. Generally, hearsay is not allowed in court because it may not be reliable. Additionally, in securities arbitration, the burden of proof is lower than it is in a traditional court. In traditional court, the burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” meaning that the facts must be proven to a very high standard. In securities arbitration, the burden of proof is “preponderance of the evidence,” which is a lower standard. This means that the facts must be proven to a greater degree than in a traditional court. In summary, there are differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing, which are generally more relaxed. The burden of proof is also lower in securities arbitration than in a traditional court.

Are there any differences between the rules of evidence in a traditional court and in a securities arbitration hearing?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts