Plaintiffs in civil cases and the prosecution in criminal actions generally have the “burden” of proving all factual issues material under the applicable substantive law. The effect of so placing this burden is twofold. First, it compels the plaintiff, or prosecution, to produce a quantum of evidence sufficient to persuade the judge that a reasonable jury could (not should), on the basis of that evidence, find that the burden has been “carried” and that the requisite facts have been proven. If the judge finds the evidence inadequate for that purpose, he will direct a verdict for the defendant. The second effect results from the revelation of this burden to the jury so that it may consider it in its deliberations. No matter how that burden is described to the jury, some disadvantage should accrue to the party bearing it. The Simon/Mahan study raises a number of interesting questions about the extent to which that disadvantage can be quantified and how juries will react to that quantification.