What Is the Legal Definition of a Presumption
Legal presumptions are of two types: first, as made by the law itself, or presumptions of simple law; second, how to do them by a jury, or presumptions of law and fact. A fact that, according to the law, is considered true is called a presumption. For example, an accused is presumed innocent until the prosecutor proves beyond any doubt that he is guilty. Conjectures are used to exonerate a party from having to prove the truth of the alleged fact. However, once a party invokes a presumption, the other party is normally allowed to provide evidence to rebut (rebut) the presumption. The presumption is called a rebuttable presumption. Therefore, in essence, a presumption means imposing on a given party the obligation to provide evidence of a particular fact. There are two types of conjectures: refutable conjectures and conclusive conjectures. A rebuttable presumption is presumed to be true until a person proves otherwise (for example. B the presumption of innocence). On the other hand, a conclusive (or irrefutable) presumption can in no way be rebutted (e.B the defence of children in certain legal systems). A conclusive presumption is a presumption in which the proof of certain facts renders the existence of the alleged fact undisputed.
The presumption cannot be rebutted or rebutted by evidence to the contrary. For example, it is believed that a child under the age of seven is incapable of committing a crime. There are very few conclusive hypotheses, as they are considered a substantial rule of law as opposed to a rule of evidence. The assumptions are either legal and artificial, or natural. Hire the best business lawyers and save up to 60% of legal fees To establish such a presumption, prior experience of the link between known and derivative facts is essential, so that as soon as the existence of one is established, admitted or assumed, a conclusion is drawn about the existence of the other, regardless of any reasoning on the subject. It follows that a conclusion may be certain or uncertain, but only probable and can therefore be refuted by evidence to the contrary. In general, a conjecture is more or less strong because the alleged fact is a necessary, common or rare consequence of the fact or facts that have been seen, known or proven. If the derived fact is the necessary consequence of the known fact(s), the presumption constitutes evidence if it is the usual but not immutable consequence, the presumption is weak; But if it is sometimes, although rarely, the consequence of the fact or known facts, the presumption is irrelevant. In evidentiary law, in certain situations, a presumption of a particular fact may be made without proof. The invocation of a presumption shifts the burden of proof from one party to the other in court proceedings.
An example of a presumption without fundamental facts is the presumption of innocence.  Assumptions are sometimes divided into two types: assumptions without basic facts and assumptions with basic facts. In the United States, mandatory presumptions in criminal cases are inadmissible, but admissible presumptions are allowed. The ancient Jewish code of law, the Talmud, contained arguments based on assumptions (hazakah), statements that were considered true, unless there was reason to believe otherwise, such as: “Normally, one does not pay a debt before the term.”  The distinction between a presumption of law and a presumption of fact is described in Vol. 9, Ency. of Evidence, 882, defined as follows: A legal presumption is distinct from a presumption of fact, which is an argument of a fact based on a fact; a finding of unknown fact based on a known fact. This conclusion may stem from an earlier history of their connection; Assume the truth or actual existence of something despite a lack of direct or positive evidence of the fact, but on the basis of circumstantial evidence or probable evidence that makes it credible. Legal or artificial presumptions are those derived from the law, technical or artificial operation and effect, beyond their purely natural way. Tendency to generate faith and work uniformly, without applying the process of argumentation on which they are based to the circumstances of each case.
For example, after twenty years, without payment of interest on a bond or other acknowledgment of its existence, satisfaction must be presumed; but if only one day has elapsed less than twenty years, the presumption of satisfaction does not arise from the mere passage of time; This is, of course, an artificial and arbitrary distinction. An example of a different kind is given under this heading by civilians. If a mother and her child perish in the womb in the same conflagration, the law assumes that the mother survived and the child died first because of her weakness, and for this reason the estate belongs to the mother`s heirs. Presumptions of law and fact are artificial presumptions that are recognized as justified by law, such as conclusions to be drawn by the jury in particular circumstances; For example, the unrestricted refusal to deliver the goods at the request of the owner does not fall within a definition of a transformation, but since the restriction is accompanied by all the evils of a conversion to the owner, the law makes them equal in their effects and consequences to a transformation by ordering or advising the jury to draw a transformation of the facts of the claim and rejection. It is a rule of law that allows a court to assume that a fact is true until it is refuted by the greatest consecration (preponderance) of the evidence against it. Presumptions of simple law are either absolute or conclusive; such as, for example, the legal presumption that an obligation or other speciality has been performed for consideration cannot be rebutted by evidence until the instrument is accused of fraud or is absolute and can be rebutted; For example, the law assumes that a bill of exchange has been accepted in return, but this presumption can be rebutted by proving otherwise. A rebuttable presumption is a presumption that can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE and most state rules deal only with rebuttable assumptions, not conclusive assumptions.
For example, in comparing the two concepts, one court concluded that “constructive communication” is a legal presumption that makes it impossible to dismiss the issue of disclosure, while “implied disclosure” is a presumption of fact that relates to what can be learned through reasonable investigation and results from the actual disclosure of the circumstances. and not through constructive communication. Charles v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation, C.C.A.Okl., 282 F. 983, 988. These assumptions can be refuted by evidence, such as: A number of assumptions can be found in most common law jurisdictions. Examples of these hypotheses: An example of conjecture with basic facts is declared dead in absentia, e.B the law says, if a person has disappeared for seven years or more (basic fact), that person is considered dead. [Citation needed] Examples of legal presumptions include: natural conjectures depend on their own form and effectiveness in generating faith or conviction in the mind, as they arise from these contexts indicated by experience; they are completely independent of any artificial context and relationship and differ in this essential respect from mere legal presumptions that they depend on the particular legal system to which they belong, or rather are a branch of it; But simple natural assumptions are completely derived from the common experience of humanity, the course of nature, and the ordinary habits of society. These schools became affiliated universities, but never reached the importance of the University of Law. Now, this establishment of an orderly and law-abiding self seems to me to imply that there are impulses that put things in order.
It must be admitted that the new law does little or nothing to alleviate such a situation. .
平均评分 / 5. 票数：