Burden of Proof FRE

Burden of ProofBurden of Proof

FRE – no definition of “Burden of FRE – no definition of “Burden of Proof”Proof”

Evid. Code § 115. "Burden of proof" Evid. Code § 115. "Burden of proof" means the obligation of a party to means the obligation of a party to establish by evidence a requisite establish by evidence a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the the mind of the trier of fact or the court. court.


2 distinct issues:2 distinct issues:

1) which party must prove a fact1) which party must prove a fact

2) the degree to which that fact must 2) the degree to which that fact must be proved be proved

-- the standard of proof-- the standard of proof


First Distinct Issue:First Distinct Issue:

1) which party must prove a fact1) which party must prove a fact

Burden of Proof (cont.)Burden of Proof (cont.)

Allocation:Allocation:Evid. Code § 500 – except as otherwise Evid. Code § 500 – except as otherwise

provided by law, a party has the burden provided by law, a party has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or of proof as to each fact the existence or non-existence of which is essential to non-existence of which is essential to the claim for relief or defense asserted.the claim for relief or defense asserted.

Exceptions may be created by Exceptions may be created by constitutional, statutory or decisional constitutional, statutory or decisional lawlaw


Allocation:Allocation:Evid. Code § 550 – the burden of Evid. Code § 550 – the burden of

producing evidence as to a particular producing evidence as to a particular fact is on the party against whom a fact is on the party against whom a finding on that fact would be required finding on that fact would be required in the absence of further evidencein the absence of further evidenceThe burden of producing evidence as to a The burden of producing evidence as to a

particular fact is initially on the party with particular fact is initially on the party with the burden of proof as to that fact the burden of proof as to that fact


Allocation:Allocation: Courts may consider the knowledge of each Courts may consider the knowledge of each

party concerning the particular fact, the party concerning the particular fact, the availability of evidence to each party, the availability of evidence to each party, the most desirable result in public policy in terms most desirable result in public policy in terms of the absence of proof of the fact, and the of the absence of proof of the fact, and the probability of the existence of the fact.probability of the existence of the fact.

Examples:Examples: Res ipsa – surgery patientRes ipsa – surgery patient Retirement policy – certification of professors Retirement policy – certification of professors

after age 70after age 70 Insurance coverage – event falling within Insurance coverage – event falling within

exclusion exclusion


Second Distinct Issue:Second Distinct Issue:

2) the degree to which that fact must 2) the degree to which that fact must be proved be proved

-- the standard of proof-- the standard of proof


Standards of proof – civil casesStandards of proof – civil casesPreponderance of the evidencePreponderance of the evidence

More probable than notMore probable than notEvidence on one side outweighs or Evidence on one side outweighs or

preponderates over evidence on the preponderates over evidence on the other sideother side

Default standard (Evid. Code §115)Default standard (Evid. Code §115)


Standards of proof – civil casesStandards of proof – civil casesClear and convincing evidenceClear and convincing evidence

High probabilityHigh probabilitySo clear as to leave no substantial doubtSo clear as to leave no substantial doubtSufficiently strong to command the Sufficiently strong to command the

unhesitating assent of every reasonable unhesitating assent of every reasonable mindmind


CLEAR & CONVINCING EVIDENCE STANDARDCLEAR & CONVINCING EVIDENCE STANDARD Applies to certain types of actions, often Applies to certain types of actions, often

where fundamental rights are at stake in a where fundamental rights are at stake in a civil settingcivil setting

Examples: Examples: term of parental rights; term of parental rights; establishing a conservatorship; establishing a conservatorship; injunctions to abate street gangs; injunctions to abate street gangs; abatement of obscenity; abatement of obscenity; setting aside election results, etc.setting aside election results, etc.


Standards of proof – criminal casesStandards of proof – criminal casesPenal Code § 1096 – proof beyond a Penal Code § 1096 – proof beyond a

reasonable doubtreasonable doubt


A defendant in a criminal action is A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his or her reasonable doubt whether his or her guilt is satisfactorily shown, he or she is guilt is satisfactorily shown, he or she is entitled to an acquittal, but the effect entitled to an acquittal, but the effect of this presumption is only to place of this presumption is only to place upon the state the burden of proving upon the state the burden of proving him or her guilty beyond a reasonable him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. doubt.


Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: "It is not a mere possible doubt; "It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.truth of the charge.


Other Standards of proof:Other Standards of proof:Arbitrary and capricious – some evidence Arbitrary and capricious – some evidence

to support findingto support findingProbable cause – strong suspicion of guiltProbable cause – strong suspicion of guiltSubstantial Evidence – must be relevant Substantial Evidence – must be relevant

and reliable evidenceand reliable evidenceConcept of sufficiency of the evidence – Concept of sufficiency of the evidence –

reviewing court standard – could be some reviewing court standard – could be some evidence; or a rational basis; or evidence; or a rational basis; or substantial evidencesubstantial evidence

Burden of Burden of Proof/Persuasion/ProductionProof/Persuasion/Production

Problems in terminology – Problems in terminology – What does “Burden of Persuasion” What does “Burden of Persuasion”

mean?mean?

Is it the same as “Burden of Proof”?Is it the same as “Burden of Proof”?

Or is it the same as “Burden of Or is it the same as “Burden of Production”?Production”?


Problems in terminology – Problems in terminology – Mendez uses “Burden of Persuasion” to Mendez uses “Burden of Persuasion” to

also mean “Burden of Proof”also mean “Burden of Proof”

Merritt and Simmons do little with the Merritt and Simmons do little with the burden of proofburden of proof


FRE 301:FRE 301: In all civil actions and proceedings not In all civil actions and proceedings not

otherwise provided for by Act of Congress otherwise provided for by Act of Congress or by these rules, a presumption imposes or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidenceburden of going forward with evidence to to rebut or meet the presumption, but does rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the not shift to such party the burden of proof burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasionin the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, , which remains throughout the trial upon the which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.party on whom it was originally cast.


Evid. Code § 110. "Burden of producing Evid. Code § 110. "Burden of producing evidence" means the obligation of a evidence" means the obligation of a party to introduce evidence sufficient to party to introduce evidence sufficient to avoid a ruling against him on the issue. avoid a ruling against him on the issue.

Evid. Code § 115. "Burden of proof" Evid. Code § 115. "Burden of proof" means the obligation of a party to means the obligation of a party to establish by evidence a requisite degree establish by evidence a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court. the trier of fact or the court.


TreatisesTreatises Witkin on California Evidence – no Witkin on California Evidence – no

category for burden of persuasioncategory for burden of persuasion Simons California Evidence Manual – no Simons California Evidence Manual – no

discussion of burden of persuasiondiscussion of burden of persuasion Jefferson Evidence Benchbook – refers to Jefferson Evidence Benchbook – refers to

the need to persuade if one is the moving the need to persuade if one is the moving party on a motion or in closing argumentsparty on a motion or in closing arguments

All three of these works extensively All three of these works extensively discuss the separate, but related, ideas of discuss the separate, but related, ideas of burden of proof and the burden of burden of proof and the burden of producing evidenceproducing evidence


Motions to suppress:Motions to suppress: no warrant no warrant expectation of privacyexpectation of privacy with search warrant with search warrant

Miranda motion after Miranda motion after evidence of proper warning evidence of proper warning and valid waiverand valid waiver

Expert witness example no. 1 Expert witness example no. 1 (defendant offers expert DNA (defendant offers expert DNA evidence)evidence)

Expert witness example no. 2 Expert witness example no. 2 (defendant offers opinion (defendant offers opinion evidence of lack of propensity evidence of lack of propensity to molest)to molest)

Motion to impeach with priors Motion to impeach with priors – prosecution moves, defense – prosecution moves, defense claims prejudicial – who has claims prejudicial – who has burden of “persuasion”?burden of “persuasion”?

Chain of custody exampleChain of custody example Closing argumentsClosing arguments Rebuttable presumption in Rebuttable presumption in

employment case (St.Mary’s employment case (St.Mary’s v. Hicks at 509 U.S. at pp 507-v. Hicks at 509 U.S. at pp 507-508; at pp. 509-510; at pp. 508; at pp. 509-510; at pp. 510-511510-511

Celotex 477 U.S. at 322-323 Celotex 477 U.S. at 322-323 (defendant moves for (defendant moves for summary judgment – has summary judgment – has burden on motion but no burden on motion but no burden of proof in case)burden of proof in case)

Celotex at pp. 324-325 Celotex at pp. 324-325 discussion of burden of proof discussion of burden of proof and burden of producing and burden of producing evidence – where exactly evidence – where exactly does burden of persuasion fit does burden of persuasion fit in here? Is it a synonym of in here? Is it a synonym of burden of proof, which also burden of proof, which also means burden of production?means burden of production?

Presumptions Presumptions FRE 301– default rule in federal courtFRE 301– default rule in federal court

It only applies when some other provision does It only applies when some other provision does notnot

It shifts the burden of going forward, but not the It shifts the burden of going forward, but not the burden of proofburden of proof

FRE 302 – State law governs presumptions FRE 302 – State law governs presumptions in cases based on Diversity jurisdiction in cases based on Diversity jurisdiction (similar to FRE 501 privileges and FRE 601 (similar to FRE 501 privileges and FRE 601 in determining witness competence) in determining witness competence)

FRE has no presumptions that apply to FRE has no presumptions that apply to criminal casescriminal cases

Presumptions (cont.)Presumptions (cont.)

Definitions:Definitions: Evid. Code § 110 -- Burden of producing Evid. Code § 110 -- Burden of producing

evidenceevidence Evid. Code § 115 -- Burden of proofEvid. Code § 115 -- Burden of proof Evid. Code § 600 – presumption and Evid. Code § 600 – presumption and

inference definedinference defined Evid. Code § 601 – classification of Evid. Code § 601 – classification of

presumptions (3 kinds –1) conclusive or presumptions (3 kinds –1) conclusive or rebuttable – rebuttable either affects 2) rebuttable – rebuttable either affects 2) burden of proof or 3) burden of producing burden of proof or 3) burden of producing evidence)evidence)


Evid. Code § 600(a): A presumption is Evid. Code § 600(a): A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in an action. A otherwise established in an action. A presumption is not evidence.presumption is not evidence.

PresumptionsPresumptions

Merritt & Simmons “Learning Evidence: Merritt & Simmons “Learning Evidence: From the Federal Rules to the Courtroom”From the Federal Rules to the Courtroom”

Most presumptions fit within 4 categories:Most presumptions fit within 4 categories:1. permissive inferences1. permissive inferences2. burden of production shifting presumptions2. burden of production shifting presumptions3. burden of proof shifting presumptions 3. burden of proof shifting presumptions 4. conclusive presumptions4. conclusive presumptions


1. Permissive inferences – with this 1. Permissive inferences – with this type of presumption, the judge type of presumption, the judge instructs the jury that it may infer instructs the jury that it may infer one fact from another.one fact from another.e.g. CALJIC 204 – consciousness of guilte.g. CALJIC 204 – consciousness of guilt


2. Burden of production shifting presumptions2. Burden of production shifting presumptions Shifts the burden of producing evidence from one party Shifts the burden of producing evidence from one party

to anotherto another A plaintiff in a civil action has two different burdens:A plaintiff in a civil action has two different burdens:

Burden of proof – persuade the jury that each element of Burden of proof – persuade the jury that each element of claim is trueclaim is true

Burden of producing evidence – during case-in-chief plaintiff Burden of producing evidence – during case-in-chief plaintiff must produce enough evidence on each element of claim to must produce enough evidence on each element of claim to get the case to the jury (to avoid a directed verdict)get the case to the jury (to avoid a directed verdict)

If a party successfully invokes one of these If a party successfully invokes one of these presumptions, the opponent must respond by producing presumptions, the opponent must respond by producing some contrary evidencesome contrary evidence

Once the opponent responds, the original party retains Once the opponent responds, the original party retains the burden of proof on the issuethe burden of proof on the issue


Rebuttable presumptions, burden of Rebuttable presumptions, burden of producing evidence:producing evidence:

Evid. Code § 603 – a presumption Evid. Code § 603 – a presumption affecting the burden of producing affecting the burden of producing evidence is a presumption evidence is a presumption established to implement no public established to implement no public policy other than to facilitate the policy other than to facilitate the determination of the particular action determination of the particular action in which the presumption is applied. in which the presumption is applied.


Rebuttable presumptions, burden of producing Rebuttable presumptions, burden of producing evidence:evidence:

Evid. Code § 604 – Evid. Code § 604 – The effect of a presumption affecting the burden The effect of a presumption affecting the burden

of producing evidence is to require the trier of of producing evidence is to require the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact unless and until evidence is introduced which fact unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence, would support a finding of its nonexistence,

in which case the trier of fact shall determine the in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the from the evidence and without regard to the presumption. presumption.


Rebuttable presumptions, burden of Rebuttable presumptions, burden of producing evidence:producing evidence:

Evid. Code §§ 630-647Evid. Code §§ 630-647


Evid. Code § 646Evid. Code § 646(a) As used in this section, (a) As used in this section,

"defendant" includes any party "defendant" includes any party against whom the res ipsa loquitur against whom the res ipsa loquitur presumption operates. presumption operates.

(b) The judicial doctrine of res ipsa (b) The judicial doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a presumption affecting loquitur is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. the burden of producing evidence.

Presumptions (cont.)Presumptions (cont.) Evid. Code § 646Evid. Code § 646 (c) If the evidence, or facts otherwise established, would (c) If the evidence, or facts otherwise established, would

support a res ipsa loquitur presumption and the defendant support a res ipsa loquitur presumption and the defendant has introduced evidence which would support a finding that has introduced evidence which would support a finding that he was not negligent or that any negligence on his part was he was not negligent or that any negligence on his part was not a proximate cause of the occurrence, the court may, not a proximate cause of the occurrence, the court may, and upon request shall, instruct the jury to the effect that: and upon request shall, instruct the jury to the effect that: (1) If the facts which would give rise to res ipsa loquitur (1) If the facts which would give rise to res ipsa loquitur

presumption are found or otherwise established, the jury may presumption are found or otherwise established, the jury may draw the inference from such facts that a proximate cause of draw the inference from such facts that a proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant; and defendant; and

(2) The jury shall not find that a proximate cause of the (2) The jury shall not find that a proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant unless the jury believes, after weighing all the defendant unless the jury believes, after weighing all the evidence in the case and drawing such inferences therefrom as evidence in the case and drawing such inferences therefrom as the jury believes are warranted, that it is more probable than the jury believes are warranted, that it is more probable than not that the occurrence was caused by some negligent conduct not that the occurrence was caused by some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant. on the part of the defendant.


Evid. Code § 646 - Hypo: patient Evid. Code § 646 - Hypo: patient unconscious during surgery – scalpel left unconscious during surgery – scalpel left in incisionin incision

Res ipsa - 3 conditions to be proved:Res ipsa - 3 conditions to be proved:1) it is the kind of injury that ordinarily does 1) it is the kind of injury that ordinarily does

not occur in the absence of negligence;not occur in the absence of negligence;2) the injury was cause by an agency or 2) the injury was cause by an agency or

instrumentality in the exclusive control of D.instrumentality in the exclusive control of D.3) the injury was not due to contribution by 3) the injury was not due to contribution by

P.P.


Evid. Code § 646 - Hypo: patient Evid. Code § 646 - Hypo: patient unconscious during surgery – scalpel unconscious during surgery – scalpel left in incisionleft in incision

Res ipsa - Once 3 conditions are Res ipsa - Once 3 conditions are proved: proved: D. now must produce evidence sufficient to D. now must produce evidence sufficient to

support a contrary finding;support a contrary finding;If D. fails to do so, presumption attaches If D. fails to do so, presumption attaches

and jury must find D.’s negligence caused and jury must find D.’s negligence caused injury;injury;


Evid. Code § 646- Hypo: patient unconscious Evid. Code § 646- Hypo: patient unconscious during surgery – scalpel left in incisionduring surgery – scalpel left in incision

Res ipsa - Once 3 conditions are proved: Res ipsa - Once 3 conditions are proved: If D. is able to produce evidence sufficient to If D. is able to produce evidence sufficient to

support a contrary finding, the presumption support a contrary finding, the presumption disappears;disappears;

Now proof of 3 conditions will support an Now proof of 3 conditions will support an inference that D.’s negligence caused the injury;inference that D.’s negligence caused the injury;

This inference is then weighed by the jury This inference is then weighed by the jury against the evidence that D. produced to against the evidence that D. produced to support a contrary findingsupport a contrary finding

Presumptions (cont.)Presumptions (cont.) Evid. Code § 646 Hypo: patient unconscious Evid. Code § 646 Hypo: patient unconscious

during surgery – scalpel left in incisionduring surgery – scalpel left in incision Now, the court may, and upon request shall, Now, the court may, and upon request shall,

instruct the jury to the effect that: instruct the jury to the effect that: (1) If the facts which would give rise to res ipsa loquitur (1) If the facts which would give rise to res ipsa loquitur

presumption are found or otherwise established, the jury presumption are found or otherwise established, the jury may draw the inference from such facts that a may draw the inference from such facts that a proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant; and conduct on the part of the defendant; and

(2) The jury shall not find that a proximate cause of the (2) The jury shall not find that a proximate cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant unless the jury believes, after weighing all the defendant unless the jury believes, after weighing all the evidence in the case and drawing such inferences the evidence in the case and drawing such inferences therefrom as the jury believes are warranted, that it is therefrom as the jury believes are warranted, that it is more probable than not that the occurrence was caused more probable than not that the occurrence was caused by some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant. by some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant.


Another example of burden of production shifting presumption: Another example of burden of production shifting presumption: St. Mary’s Honor Center v. HicksSt. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) – Title , 509 U.S. 502 (1993) – Title

VII suit-race discrimination claim – Hicks proved in case-in-VII suit-race discrimination claim – Hicks proved in case-in-chief that 1) he was African American; 2) he was qualified for chief that 1) he was African American; 2) he was qualified for his position; 3) the Dept. of Corrections discharged him; and 4) his position; 3) the Dept. of Corrections discharged him; and 4) a white man replaced him.a white man replaced him.

These facts created a presumption of racial discrimination that These facts created a presumption of racial discrimination that shifted the burden of producing evidence to the employershifted the burden of producing evidence to the employer

Hicks proof was sufficient to withstand a motion for directed Hicks proof was sufficient to withstand a motion for directed verdictverdict

The employer had to counter Hick’s case by producing its own The employer had to counter Hick’s case by producing its own evidence, or else Hick’s gets benefit of presumption and evidence, or else Hick’s gets benefit of presumption and instruction from court to find for Hicks if jury believes facts 1-4.instruction from court to find for Hicks if jury believes facts 1-4.


Example of burden of production shifting Example of burden of production shifting presumption (cont.):presumption (cont.):

If employer counters with evidence that Hicks If employer counters with evidence that Hicks was fired because of misconduct on the job, the was fired because of misconduct on the job, the presumption is dropped from the case presumption is dropped from the case

Jury never hears about the presumptionJury never hears about the presumption Now jury decides whether Hicks was fired Now jury decides whether Hicks was fired

because he was African American or because he because he was African American or because he committed workplace misconduct —committed workplace misconduct — Jury can decide for either party, with many possible Jury can decide for either party, with many possible

findingsfindings

At all times, Hicks retains the burden of proof as At all times, Hicks retains the burden of proof as to each element of his claimto each element of his claim


3. Burden of Proof shifting presumptions3. Burden of Proof shifting presumptions Similar to burden of production shifting presumption, Similar to burden of production shifting presumption,

but goes one step further and shifts burden of proof but goes one step further and shifts burden of proof to other partyto other party

Before burden shifts and presumption applies, jury Before burden shifts and presumption applies, jury must find facts supporting presumption to be true. must find facts supporting presumption to be true. Example: Just before declaring bankruptcy, debtors transfer Example: Just before declaring bankruptcy, debtors transfer

assets to relatives and friends. Bankruptcy trustee sues assets to relatives and friends. Bankruptcy trustee sues claiming fraud. Once trustee proves “badges of fraud”, claiming fraud. Once trustee proves “badges of fraud”, burden of proof shifted to debtors to show that they did not burden of proof shifted to debtors to show that they did not act fraudulently.act fraudulently.

Jury gets instructed that if they find that trustee proved Jury gets instructed that if they find that trustee proved badges of fraud, debtors must prove no fraud by badges of fraud, debtors must prove no fraud by preponderance of the evidence. If debtors fail to meet this preponderance of the evidence. If debtors fail to meet this burden of proof, then jury must find for trustee.burden of proof, then jury must find for trustee.


Rebuttable presumptions, burden of proof:Rebuttable presumptions, burden of proof: Evid. Code § 605 –Evid. Code § 605 – A presumption affecting the burden of proof is a A presumption affecting the burden of proof is a

presumption established to implement some public presumption established to implement some public policy other than to facilitate the determination of policy other than to facilitate the determination of the particular action in which the presumption is the particular action in which the presumption is applied, applied, such as the policy in favor of establishment of a such as the policy in favor of establishment of a

parent and child relationship, parent and child relationship, the validity of marriage, the validity of marriage, the stability of titles to property, the stability of titles to property, or the security of those who entrust themselves or the security of those who entrust themselves

or their property to the administration of others. or their property to the administration of others.


Rebuttable presumptions, burden of proof:Rebuttable presumptions, burden of proof:

Evid. Code § 606Evid. Code § 606

The effect of a presumption affecting the burden The effect of a presumption affecting the burden of proof is to impose upon the party against of proof is to impose upon the party against whom it operates the burden of proof as to the whom it operates the burden of proof as to the nonexistence of the presumed fact. nonexistence of the presumed fact.


Rebuttable presumptions, burden of proof:Rebuttable presumptions, burden of proof:

Evid. Code § 606Evid. Code § 606

§ 660: The presumptions established by this § 660: The presumptions established by this article, and all other rebuttable presumptions article, and all other rebuttable presumptions established by law that fall within the criteria of established by law that fall within the criteria of Section 605, are presumptions affecting the Section 605, are presumptions affecting the burden of proof. burden of proof.

Evid. Code §§ 660-670Evid. Code §§ 660-670


4. Conclusive presumptions:4. Conclusive presumptions:• A.k.a. irrebuttable presumptionsA.k.a. irrebuttable presumptions• if the jury finds the facts giving rise to the if the jury finds the facts giving rise to the

presumption to be true, the jury is presumption to be true, the jury is required to draw a particular inferencerequired to draw a particular inference

• Example: personal injury –plaintiff wearing Example: personal injury –plaintiff wearing nightgown which catches fire and clings to nightgown which catches fire and clings to plaintiff causing severe burns; if seller plaintiff causing severe burns; if seller defendant can show that product complied defendant can show that product complied with regulatory safety standards, with regulatory safety standards, conclusive presumption entitles seller conclusive presumption entitles seller defendant to judgment defendant to judgment


Conclusive presumptions: Conclusive presumptions: Evid. Code §§ 620-624Evid. Code §§ 620-624

Facts recited in an instrumentFacts recited in an instrumentEstoppel by own conductEstoppel by own conductEstoppel of tenant to deny title of Estoppel of tenant to deny title of

landlord landlord


Criminal cases – Evid. Code § 607. Criminal cases – Evid. Code § 607. When a presumption affecting the burden of proof When a presumption affecting the burden of proof operates in a criminal action to establish presumptively operates in a criminal action to establish presumptively any fact that is essential to the defendant's guilt, the any fact that is essential to the defendant's guilt, the presumption operates only if the facts that give rise to the presumption operates only if the facts that give rise to the presumption have been found or otherwise established presumption have been found or otherwise established beyond a reasonable doubt and, in such case, the beyond a reasonable doubt and, in such case, the defendant need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the presumed fact.existence of the presumed fact.

If presumption lightens prosecution’s burden of proof, If presumption lightens prosecution’s burden of proof, probably unconstitutionalprobably unconstitutional

If jury is instructed on what it must find, probably If jury is instructed on what it must find, probably unconstitutional unconstitutional

Burden of Proof FRE – no definition of “Burden of Proof” FRE – no definition of “Burden of Proof” Evid. Code § 115. "Burden of proof" means the obligation.

Documents

particular fact

proof evid

absence of proof

trier of fact

definition of burden

standard of proof slide

evidence evid