The following excerpt is from People ex rel. Matthews by Greenberg v. New York State Div. of Parole, 447 N.E.2d 689, 460 N.Y.S.2d 746, 58 N.Y.2d 196 (N.Y. 1983):
Our holding in that case depends on an analysis of the burdens of proof applicable in the different types of proceedings. The burden at the parole revocation hearing is on the People to show a violation of the conditions of parole by a preponderance of the evidence (9 NYCRR 8005.19[e] ), while at trial the People must meet the higher burden of proving the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. If, however, the defendant raises an affirmative defense, the burden is on the defendant either at trial or at the hearing to establish that affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, if he is successful at trial, he necessarily has met the burden of proof he would have been put at the hearing. The inverse, of course, is not true because an acquittal on any basis which does not involve the defendant bearing part of the burden of proof merely stands for the proposition that the People have failed to meet the higher standard of proof required at the criminal proceeding. The People's burden of proof being less at the parole revocation hearing, they would be entitled to an opportunity to meet that burden except in cases like People ex rel. Dowdy v. Smith, supra, where the defendant had already precluded the issue by having it resolved at trial on the basis of a clear preponderance of the evidence.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.