The plaintiff has to show the court there’s even a case to begin with.
Yes, and during that process, there is no evidence that is considered. Essentially, the judge takes every claim of wrongdoing at face value, and then determines if there is a law that applies. Basically checking to see if the outcome even matters in the worse case scenario. That works the same for both criminal* and civil cases.
*EDIT: Criminal actually goes to a grand jury and does look at some physical evidence, but only enough to establish probably cause. To over simplify, that the state isn’t completely make stuff up just to harass someone. Not to show guilt, but to show that a crime was even possible to have been committed by the defendant. Like, that an alleged stolen object was actually stolen and that the person was approximately on the correct half of the globe at the time.
Yes, and during that process, there is no evidence that is considered. Essentially, the judge takes every claim of wrongdoing at face value, and then determines if there is a law that applies. Basically checking to see if the outcome even matters in the worse case scenario. That works the same for both criminal* and civil cases.
*EDIT: Criminal actually goes to a grand jury and does look at some physical evidence, but only enough to establish probably cause. To over simplify, that the state isn’t completely make stuff up just to harass someone. Not to show guilt, but to show that a crime was even possible to have been committed by the defendant. Like, that an alleged stolen object was actually stolen and that the person was approximately on the correct half of the globe at the time.