With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or “that in the event even if they found there was a struggle, if they found the moment he fired a gun there was no more deadly physical force, threat, toward Brown or his partner, that they must find for [the plaintiff]”, (Tr. 2597). The burden in this case was on the Plaintiff to show by a preponderance of evidence that Brown’s use of deadly force against Rasanen constituted excessive force under the law. If the Plaintiff could not convincingly disprove Brown’s version of events; prove that Brown’s account constituted excessive force; or prove a more likely account of the shooting that would not justify the use of deadly force, then, all scenarios being equal, the jury could reasonably render a verdict for the Defendant. See United States v. Gigante, 94 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>); see, e.g., Public Adm’r of Queens County v.

A: holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence
B: holding that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence
C: holding that the preponderance of the evidence standard dictates that that when the evidence on an issue is evenly balanced the party with the burden of proof loses
D: holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard
C.