Also known as: evidentiary presumption · presumptions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that permits or requires a factfinder to infer one fact from proof of another fact. The inference may be mandatory or permissive and may be rebuttable or irrebuttable. Constitutional limits restrict presumptions that shift the burden of proof on an element of a crime or that deny any opportunity to contest a factual basis for detention.
Ezra Eastman, a U.S. citizen detained as an enemy combatant, appears before a military tribunal. The government offers hearsay reports and invokes a rebuttable presumption that the reports accurately establish his combatant status. Ezra presents limited counter-evidence. The tribunal accepts the presumption as sufficient to uphold detention while still affording Ezra a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis.
Eileen Epstein's law firm previously represented Edward Everett in a personal-injury matter. The firm now seeks to represent Emily Ellis against Edward in a related uninsured-motorist claim. Edward moves to disqualify the firm. The court applies a presumption that the firm received confidential information during the prior representation and disqualifies the firm despite screening measures.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A permissive presumption allows but does not require the factfinder to draw the inference and is constitutional if a rational connection exists between the proven and presumed facts. A mandatory presumption requires the factfinder to draw the inference and violates due process if it shifts the burden of proof on an element of the offense to the defendant.
Supporting sources
Due process permits relaxed evidentiary rules and government-favorable rebuttable presumptions in light of military exigencies. The government may not, however, deny the detainee all opportunity to contest the factual basis for detention before a neutral decisionmaker.
Supporting sources
Noncompliance does not automatically extinguish deficiency liability. In many jurisdictions the debtor may invoke presumptions that reduce or eliminate the deficiency by treating the collateral value as equal to the debt or by shifting the burden of proof on value to the secured party.
Supporting sources