Also known as: mandatory rebuttable presumptions · mandatory presumption · rebuttable presumption
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural device that requires the factfinder to accept a presumed fact as true upon proof of a basic fact unless the opponent produces evidence sufficient to rebut it. The device shifts only the burden of production and leaves the burden of persuasion on the party that originally bore it. It differs from a conclusive presumption because the opponent may still introduce contrary evidence and from a permissive inference because the factfinder must accept the presumed fact if no rebuttal evidence appears.
Miles Montgomery signed a document reciting that it was his last will and left his estate to his girlfriend. After his death his sister introduced voicemails showing he executed the paper only to induce the girlfriend to remain in the relationship and never intended it to operate as a will. The court treats the recitals as creating a mandatory rebuttable presumption of testamentary intent that the sister may overcome with the extrinsic evidence.
Marco Marquez left Monarch Pharmaceuticals after representing a client in a patent dispute and joined Momentum Capital. The former client moved to disqualify the new firm. The court applies a mandatory rebuttable presumption that Marco received confidential information and requires the firm to produce evidence of timely ethical screens before it may continue the representation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Maria Morales introduced statewide sentencing data showing that defendants who killed white victims received death sentences far more often than those who killed Black victims. The prosecution introduced case-specific evidence that the jury considered only the aggravating and mitigating factors in her trial. The court holds that the statistical disparity creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption of unconstitutional discrimination that the state may overcome with evidence limited to the facts of her case.
Megan Moore raised an insanity defense and introduced lay testimony that she had acted strangely for weeks before the shooting. The government offered no expert evidence of her mental state at the time of the crime. The court instructs the jury that proof of the shooting creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption of sanity that the defendant must overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.
Mohan Malhotra was a passenger in a car stopped for speeding. Police found two handguns under the front seat. The prosecution introduced a statute providing that presence in a vehicle containing a firearm creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption that every occupant knowingly possessed the weapon. Malhotra offered testimony that he had never seen the guns before the stop.
Melissa Mills burned a cross on the lawn of an African-American family and was charged under a statute that treated the act as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. The defense introduced testimony that the cross was burned as part of a political protest unrelated to the family. The court holds that the statute creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption that the jury must accept unless the defendant produces evidence negating intent.
A mandatory rebuttable presumption requires the factfinder to accept the presumed fact once the basic fact is proved unless the opponent produces rebuttal evidence. A permissive inference merely allows but does not require the factfinder to draw the connection even if no rebuttal evidence appears.
Supporting sources
No. The device shifts only the burden of production. The party that originally bore the burden of persuasion retains that burden throughout the case.
Supporting sources
It is invalid when it relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt or when it creates an irrebuttable presumption that the defendant cannot overcome.
Supporting sources
…performed, that reveals that race more likely than not infects capital sentencing decisions. The Court's position converts a rebuttable presumption into a virtually conclusive one. The Court also declines to find McCleskey's evidence sufficient in view of "the safeguards designed to minimize racial bias in the [capital sentencing]…