[bialczabub]

"Preponderance of evidence" here refers to a legal standard (i.e. was it more likely than not) rather than the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "most of the evidence."

The prosecutors didn't charge him with hiring hitmen because they were uncertain that they could prove it beyond a resonable doubt, but the evidence they were able to present suggests he probably did it.

[boomboomsubban]

If only one side is presenting evidence, isn't it likely that the preponderance of evidence will support their claim? I only browsed the linked judgment, but I didn't see the defense address the hitman claims.