When Georgia’s new rules of evidence were adopted in 2010, the statute never included new language for defining “a preponderance of evidence” to a jury. Michael Arndt of Brodhead law, representing plaintiff-appellants in an auto tort, asked the Georgia Court of Appeals on June 21 to determine what that language will be and whether his client can have a new trial.

At trial, the definition of “preponderance of evidence” given to the jury was partially construed from a definition in Georgia’s old evidentiary code. The plaintiff-appellants asked the court for a new trial as, according to Arndt, this was “harmful.” The trial ultimately resulted in a defense verdict.

A photo of Michael Arndt, smiling at the camera with his arms crossed. Michael Arndt of Brodhead Law. (Courtesy photo)

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]