(in the US) The burden is placed on the prosecution.
Prosecution.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, "A preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case. The advocate of a case always has the burden of proof - the prosecutor in a criminal case, the plaintiff in a civil case.
The state/ District Attorney
Prosecutor
In a misdemeanor case, the burden of proof is typically "beyond a reasonable doubt." This means that the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged to a high degree of certainty.
There would probably be more convictions.
In any civil law matter, the burden of proof is always based on the preponderence of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable double like criminal law, and it rests on that of the Plaintiff, not the state as in criminal law.
The so-called "burden of proof" is the burden that the prosecutor (in a criminal trial) or the plaintiff's attorney (in a civil trial) must present to a judge and/or jury in order to convince them that the event DID occur, and that the defendant (criminal) or respondant (civil) is the one that did it.
Actually the answer is false. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. "Innocent until proven guilty".
Two conditions placed on criminal trials are that the accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution always carries the burden of proof.
In a criminal trial (e.g. a Court-Martial) the burden of proof is the same as in state and federal criminal law. The burden is the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed each of the elements of the charged offense.
In both cases, the moving party bears the burden of proof. In a criminal case, that is the government. In a civil case, that is the plaintiff.