self preservation
Regular Member
I have seen some cases that had to be proven without a doubt. But I have seen cases where no proof at all existed and the person was still found guilty. When does the burden of proof exist and when is it not needed?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Burden of proof. When it's needed, when it's not??
- Thread starter self preservation
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I'm thinking you'll do better to google it. Since you are asking law questions, anybody who answers is going to have to cite sources anyway.
I think wikipedia is a grand place to start. Their legal articles are usually chock-full of cites, some of them even linked, making it relatively easy to track down legal sources.
I think wikipedia is a grand place to start. Their legal articles are usually chock-full of cites, some of them even linked, making it relatively easy to track down legal sources.
eye95
Well-known member
One case where the burden of proof shifts to the defendant is when he says, essentially, "Yeah, I did what the State says I did, but it is not a crime because..." Then he must prove the because.
That is probably a gross oversimplification, but I'll leave the details to a lawyer.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
That is probably a gross oversimplification, but I'll leave the details to a lawyer.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>