1. Burden Of Proof 3rd Edition Crosman Pellets

Burden Of Proof: An Introduction To Argumentation And Guide To Parliamentary Debate. Burden of Proof includes chapters focusing on the following areas: the stock issues associated with arguing propositions of fact, value, and policy; refutation and the strategic considerations pertaining to the duties of the various speakers in a debate. Buy a cheap copy of Burden of Proof: An Introduction to. Book by Mark R. Mark Crossman's text introduces students to argumentation theories associated with testing arguments and reasoning, and encourages the use of these tests of. Free shipping over $10.

Recount is partisan exercise

The way Vermonters can tell that the proposed third counting of the votes in the Orange-1 election is a partisan exercise is that the Democrats and Progressive on the House Government Operations Committee have placed the burden of proof on me, the Republican, a sworn and seated representative, to prove the recount of the election I won was conducted properly.

In a non-partisan evaluation of the situation, the burden of proof would be on the loser, Susan Davis, to prove the recount was a faulty one.

Ms. Davis’ attorney, Vince Illuzzi, made a series of unsubstantiated allegations in front of the Government Operations Committee about that recount without any offer of proof. None. That’s exactly the degree of persuasion he offered to the Orange County Superior Court back in December when the court threw out every allegation and the entire Davis case, certifying me as the winner.

But when Illuzzi made the same unsubstantiated allegations to the Gov Ops Committee, the Democrats and Progressive on the committee couldn’t wait to order a second recount. The burden of proof was placed on the Republican winner to prove a negative – that the recount was not faulty. Proving a negative is very hard to do, impossible, really, which is why legal tradition puts the burden of proof on the loser.

This will be the third time these votes have been counted and there is a partisan odor in the air around this effort to overturn an election that should worry all Vermonters. It’s an insult to every town clerk in the state, too. Government Operations figures they can do it better. What’s so ironic about that is, after four days of testimony and deliberation, the Gov Ops Committee still was confused about the difference between a “spoiled” ballot and a “defective” one. They are unfit to run a recount.

BOB FRENIER

Chelsea

The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maximei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.

Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, in criminal proceedings the accused is presumed innocent unless the prosecution presents a high level of evidence as described above. In civil proceedings (like breach of contract) the defendant is initially presumed correct unless the plaintiff presents a moderate level of evidence and thus switches the burden of proof to the defendant.

• 1History
  • 1.3Middle Ages in Europe
• 4Modern practices

History[edit]

Roman law[edit]

The sixth-century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides, as a general rule of evidence: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat^[1]—'Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies'.^[2] It is there attributed to the second and third century jurist Paul. It was introduced in Roman criminal law by emperor Antoninus Pius.^[3]

Islamic law[edit]

Similar to that of Roman law, Islamic law also holds the principle that the onus of proof is on the accuser or claimant based on a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi.^[4] 'Suspicion' is also highly condemned, this also from a hadith documented by Imam Nawawi^[5] as well as Imam Bukhari^[6] and Imam Muslim.^[7]

After the time of Muhammad, the fourth CaliphAli ibn Abi Thalib has also been cited to say, 'Avert the prescribed punishment by rejecting doubtful evidence.'^[8]

Middle Ages in Europe[edit]

Western Europe[edit]

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the West began to practice feudal law, which was a synthesis of aspects of Roman law as well as some Germanic customs according to the new elite, including presumed guilt. For instance, the accused could prove his innocence by having twelve people swear that he could not have done what he was accused of. In practice, this tended to favor the nobility over the lower classes, whose witnesses risked being seen as less credible.^[9] After the rediscovery of Roman law in the 12th century and the development of the jus commune, the canon law of the Catholic Church influenced the common law during the medieval period^[10] through its preservation of Roman law doctrine of the presumption of innocence.^[11]

Eastern Europe[edit]

Following the aforementioned Roman law of Justinian, who lived at the dawn of the medieval era, the Eastern Roman Empire generally continued along his legal code which includes presumption of innocence. This also influenced nearby states within its cultural sphere, such as Orthodox, Slavic principalities like Serbia.

Civil law[edit]

Burden Of Proof 3rd Edition Crosman Pellets

The maxim or its equivalent has been adopted by many civil law systems, including Brazil,^[12]China,^[13]France,^[14]Italy,^[15][16]Philippines,^[17]Poland,^[18]Romania^[19] and Spain.^[20]

Meaning[edit]

'Presumption of innocence' serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.^[21] This is often expressed in the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty', coined by the British barristerSir William Garrow (1760–1840)^[22] during a 1791 trial at the Old Bailey. Garrow insisted that accusers be robustly tested in court. An objective observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime.^[23] In 1935, in its judgment of Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions, the English Court of Appeal would later describe Garrow's articulation as being the 'golden thread' connecting both the criminal burden of proof and the presumption of innocence within the web of English criminal law.^[24]

The presumption of innocence was originally expressed by the French cardinal and canonical juristJean Lemoine in the phrase 'item quilbet presumitur innocens nisi probetur nocens (a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty)', based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.^[25] However, this referred not merely to the fact that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution in a criminal case, but the protections which a defendant should be given: prior notice of the accusation being made against them, the right of confrontation, right to counsel, etc.^[26] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.^[27] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.^[25] To ensure this legal protection is maintained, a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:^[21]

1. With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.
2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.

Blackstone's ratio as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s, said that:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.^[28]

The idea subsequently became a staple of legal thinking in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions and continues to be a topic of debate.

This duty on the prosecution was famously referred to as the “golden thread” in the criminal law by Lord SankeyLC in Woolmington v DPP:

Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen—that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...

The fundamental right[edit]

This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: 'Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.'.
• The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): 'Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law'. This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
• In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: 'Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal'.
• In the Colombian constitution, Title II, Chapter 1, Article 29 states that 'Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law'.
• In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, which has force as constitutional law, begins: 'Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty ...'. The Code of Criminal Procedure states in its preliminary article that 'any person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent for as long as their guilt has not been established'^[14] and the jurors' oath repeats this assertion (article 304).^[29] However, there exists a popular misconception that under French law, the accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent.^[30]
• In Iran, Article 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states: 'Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court'.
• In Italy, the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution states: 'A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.'^[31]
• In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that 'any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court.'
• The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that 'Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law'. It also states that 'The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence' and 'Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant'.
• In the South African Constitution, section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights states: 'Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings.'
• Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes. See also In re Winship.
• In New Zealand, the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 provides inter alia at section 25 (c) 'Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law'^[32]

Modern practices[edit]

United Kingdom[edit]

In the United Kingdom changes have been made affecting this principle. Defendants' previous convictions may in certain circumstances be revealed to juries. Although the suspect is not compelled to answer questions after formal arrest, failure to give information may now be prejudicial at trial. Statute law also exists which provides for criminal penalties for failing to decrypt data on request from the police. If the suspect is unwilling to do so, it is an offence.^[33] Citizens can therefore be convicted and imprisoned without any evidence that the encrypted material was unlawful. Furthermore, in sexual offence cases such as rape, where the sexual act has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt, there are a limited number of circumstances where the defendant has an obligation to adduce evidence that the complainant consented to the sexual act, or that the defendant reasonably believed that the complainant was consenting. These circumstances include, for example, where the complainant was unconscious, unlawfully detained, or subjected to violence.^[34]

Canada[edit]

In Canadian law, the presumption of innocence has been reinforced in certain instances. The Criminal Code of Canada previously contained numerous provisions according to which defences to certain offences were subject to a reverse onus: that is, if an accused wishes to make that defence, they had to prove the facts of the defence to a balance of probabilities, rather than the Crown having to disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. This meant that an accused in some corcumstances might be convicted even if a reasonable doubt existed about their guilt. In several cases, various reverse onus provisions were found to violate the presumption of innocence provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They were replaced with procedures in which the accused merely had to demonstrate an 'air of reality' to the proposed defence, following which the burden shifted to the Crown to disprove the defence.

Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, received Royal Assent in December 2018. Among other things, it eliminated several reverse onus provisions from the Criminal Code, some of which had previously been found unconstitutional, and others pre-emptively in order to avoid further Charter challenges.^[35]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

1. ^'Digesta seu Pandectae 22.3.2'. Grenoble: Université Pierre-Mendés-France. Retrieved 2010-10-13.
2. ^Watson, Alan, ed. (1998) [1985]. '22.3.2'. The Digest of Justinian. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN0-8122-1636-9.
3. ^See Bury, p. 527
4. ^Imam Nawawi. 1977. An-Nawawi’s Forty Hadith (Second Edition English Translation by Ezzedin Ibrahim). Damascus: Holy Koran Pub. House, Hadith No. 33
5. ^Riyaadus Shaaliheen, Hadith No. 1573
6. ^Sahih Al-Bukhari (English Version), Vol. 8, Book 73, Hadith 90
7. ^Sahih Muslim (English Version), Book 32, Hadith 6214
8. ^Imam ibn Hajar's Bulugh al-Maram (English Version), Book 10, Hadith 1260
9. ^'Law in the Middle Ages'. The Finer Times. Retrieved January 16, 2018.
10. ^Friedman, Lawrence M., American Law: An Introduction (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1984), pg. 70.
11. ^William Wirt Howe, Studies in the Civil Law, and its Relation to the Law of England and America (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1896), pg. 51.
    «In one of his elaborate orations in the United States Senate Mr. Charles Sumner spoke of “the generous presumption of the common law in favor of the innocence of an accused person;” yet it must be admitted that such a presumption cannot be found in Anglo-Saxon law, where sometimes the presumption seems to have been the other way. And in a very recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States, the case of Coffin, 156 U. S. 432, it is pointed out that this presumption was fully established in the Roman law, and was preserved in the canon law.»
12. ^Decree-Law 3689 date=August 2012
13. ^CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA date=August 2001
14. ^ ^abCode de procédure pénale, article préliminaire(in French)
15. ^'ForoEuropo Italia'. Foroeuropeo.it. Archived from the original on 2010-06-11. Retrieved 2010-10-13.Cite uses deprecated parameter deadurl= (help)
16. ^'Assomedici.It'. Assomedici.It. 1993-01-29. Retrieved 2010-10-13.
17. ^People vs. Masalihit, decision of the Supreme Court of The PhilippinesArchived 2007-09-29 at the Wayback Machine
18. ^'National Constitutional Law Related to Article 48 – Presumption of Innocence and Right to Defence'. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Archived from the original on 2012-07-11. Retrieved 2011-05-16.Cite uses deprecated parameter deadurl= (help)
19. ^'Constitution of Romania, Article 23'. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
20. ^Valentin Anders (2010-09-08). 'Latin legal maxims in Spanish'. Latin.dechile.net. Retrieved 2010-10-13.
21. ^ ^abMueller, Christopher B.; Laird C. Kirkpatrick (2009). Evidence; 4th ed. Aspen (Wolters Kluwer). ISBN978-0-7355-7968-2. pp. 133–34.
22. ^Moore, Christopher (1997). The Law Society of Upper Canada and Ontario's lawyers, 1797–1997. University of Toronto Press. ISBN0-8020-4127-2.
23. ^Rembar, Charles (1980). The Law of the Land. New York: Simon & Schuster.
24. ^The Secret Barrister (2018). Stories of the Law and How It's Broken. London: Macmillan. p. 41.
25. ^ ^abWords and Phrases 1914, p. 1168
26. ^Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Origins of a Legal Maxim Kenneth Pennington A Ennio Cortese (3 Volumes. Roma: Il Cigno Galileo Galilei Edizioni, 2001)
27. ^Coffin v. United States, 156U.S.432 (1895) “the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in [their] behalf”
28. ^'Commentaries on the laws of England'. J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, 1893.
29. ^Code de procédure pénale, article 304(in French).
30. ^Davis, Michael H. (23 May 1992). 'French Law Presumes Accused Innocent'. New York Times. Retrieved 10 May 2017.
31. ^'The Italian Constitution'(PDF). The official website of the Presidency of the Italian Republic. Archived from the original on 2016-11-27.Cite uses deprecated parameter deadurl= (help)
32. ^New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure – New Zealand Legislation
33. ^'OPSI.gov.uk'. OPSI.gov.uk. Retrieved 2010-10-13.
34. ^'legislation.gov.uk'. legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 2011-04-27.
35. ^Government of Canada, Department of Justice (7 June 2017). 'Questions and Answers - Cleaning up the Criminal Code, Clarifying and Strengthening Sexual Assault Law, and Respecting the Charter'. www.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 31 July 2019.

References[edit]

• 'Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases'. St. Paul: West Publishing Co. 1914.Cite journal requires journal= (help)
• Bury, J. B. (1893). A History of the Roman Empire from its Foundation to the Death of Marcus Aurelius.

External links[edit]