1 / 19

CHAP. 10 PRESUMPTIONS (AND PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES)

CHAP. 10 PRESUMPTIONS (AND PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES). P. JANICKE 2009. TERMINOLOGY. A PRESUMPTION IS A JUDGE-MANDATED CONCLUSION THAT THE JURY MUST REACH IF IT FINDS CERTAIN PREMISE FACTS. PROPERLY SPEAKING, PRESUMPTIONS ONLY EXIST IN CIVIL CASES

sabina
Download Presentation

CHAP. 10 PRESUMPTIONS (AND PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CHAP. 10PRESUMPTIONS(AND PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES) P. JANICKE 2009

  2. TERMINOLOGY • A PRESUMPTION IS A JUDGE-MANDATED CONCLUSION THAT THE JURY MUST REACH IF IT FINDS CERTAIN PREMISE FACTS Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  3. PROPERLY SPEAKING, PRESUMPTIONS ONLY EXIST IN CIVIL CASES • HOWEVER, HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT HAS MIXED UP THE LANGUAGE • TODAY WE SAY THERE ARE PRESUMPTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES, BUT THEIR EFFECT IS DIFFERENT • THESE ARE ACTUALLY PERMISSIVE COMMENTS MADE TO THE JURY, RATHER THAN MANDATES Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  4. TERMINOLOGY • UNLIKE A PRESUMPTION, A “PERMISSIVE INFERENCE” IS MERELY A NUDGE: • A CONCLUSION THAT THE JURY MAY DRAW IF IT WISHES • JUDGE TELLS THEM THEY MAY DRAW IT • BASED ON CASE PRECEDENTS : • PRIOR CASES HOLDING CERTAIN FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A VERDICT Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  5. TRIGGER FACTS • PRESUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON PREMISES, CALLED TRIGGER FACTS • THE JUDGE TELLS THE JURY THAT IF THEY FIND FACT X AND FACT Y, THEY MUST (CRIMINAL: MAY) FIND FACT Z Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  6. EXAMPLE OF CIVIL PRESUMPTION • TRIGGER FACTS: • MARRIAGE • CHILD BORN DURING THE MARRIAGE • PRESUMED FACT: HUSBAND IS THE CHILD’S FATHER Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  7. EXAMPLE OF CIVIL PRESUMPTION • TRIGGER FACTS : • WORK WAS DONE BY A CIVIL SERVANT • IN HER CAPACITY AS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE (RATHER THAN AS PRIVATE CITIZEN) • PRESUMED FACT: WORK WAS DONE PROPERLY Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  8. HOW THE CIVIL PRESUMPTION WORKS IN COURT • THE PARTY CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF THE PRESUMPTION ASKS FOR AN INSTRUCTION ABOUT IT • THE JUDGE THEN EVALUATES ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD CONTROVERTING THE PRESUMED FACT Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  9. IF SUBSTANTIAL EV. CONTRA TO THE PRESUMED FACT IS IN THE RECORD (E.G., HUSBAND WAS NOT THE FATHER – DNA; NON-ACCESS; OTHER MEN) : • PRESUMPTION VANISHES • JUDGE SAYS NOTHING • REFUSES THE INSTRUCTION • JURY DECIDES CASE IN THE USUAL WAY Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  10. IF NO EVIDENCE TENDING TO NEGATE THE PRESUMED FACT IS IN THE RECORD: • JUDGE MUST THEN EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE ON THE TRIGGER FACTS >> Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  11. IF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ON THE TRIGGER FACTS: • JUDGE INSTRUCTS CONDITIONALLY. E.G., “IF YOU FIND THERE WAS A MARRIAGE BETWEEN H AND Y, AND THAT THE CHILD WAS BORN DURING IT, YOU MUST FIND H WAS THE FATHER” Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  12. IF NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON TRIGGER FACTS TO SUPPORT A FINDING ON EACH (e.g., NO EV. OF MARRIAGE; or NO EV. OF BIRTH BEFORE DIVORCE DATE): • THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION • JUDGE REFUSES THE INSTRUCTION • CASE GOES TO THE JURY IN THE USUAL WAY Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  13. HOW A PERMISSIBLE INFERENCE WORKS • THE JUDGE SAYS AS PART OF THE FINAL CHARGE TO THE JURY: “IF YOU FIND X AND Y, YOU MAY CONCLUDE Z.” Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  14. IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING ON THE PREMISE FACTS, THERE IS NO INFERENCE TO BE TALKED ABOUT • CASE GOES TO THE JURY IN THE USUAL WAY Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  15. EXAMPLES OF PERMISSIVE INFERENCES • TRIGGER: UNEXPLAINED POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY • INFERENCE: POSSESSOR STOLE IT • TRIGGER: LEAVING RESTAURANT WITHOUT PAYING • INFERENCE: INTENTION TO EVADE PAYMENT Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  16. SOURCES OF PERMISSIVE INFERENCES: JUDGMENTS IN PRIOR REPORTED CASES • EXAMPLE : AN EARLIER DRUG CASE INVOLVED A JUDGMENT FOR PROS. WHERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE WAS POSSESSION AND NON-EXPLANATION; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED • FROM THEN ON, AN INFERENCE ARISES Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  17. SOURCES OF PRESUMPTIONS • SOME COME FROM PRIOR CASES, WHERE APPELLATE COURT ANNOUNCES THE PRESUMPTION • MANY ARE STATUTORY Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  18. MINORITY VIEW ON PRESUMPTION’S EFFECT • SHIFTS THE BURDEN TO THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE PRESUMPTION WORKS • JUDGE INFORMS THE JURY WHERE THE BURDEN LIES • CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE DOES NOT DESTROY THE PRESUMPTION Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

  19. IN CRIMINAL CASES • PRESUMPTIONS AND PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES ARE HANDLED IN THE SAME WAY: • IF PREMISE FACTS ARE RAISED BY THE EVIDENCE, THE JUDGE SAYS IN THE FINAL INSTRUCTIONS: “IF YOU FIND X AND Y, YOU MAY CONCLUDE Z” Chap. 10 -- Presumptions

More Related