Presumption Against Accused in Criminal Cases

This topic has no further subtopics. Explore its practice questions below.

1. Current Rule 131, Section 6 applies when a presumed fact against an accused does which of the following?
2. Under Section 6, what standard must establish the existence of the basic fact supporting the covered criminal presumpti…
3. After the basic fact is established, how must the covered presumed fact follow under Section 6?
4. The prosecutor relies on a presumed offense element, but the basic fact supporting it is shown only by a weak probabili…
5. A basic fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but several reasonable explanations remain and the proposed presumed fa…
6. In a criminal case, a proposed presumption would negate an asserted defense. The prosecutor argues that Section 6 is ir…
7. A criminal court has serious gaps in the State's proof identifying the accused. It invokes official regularity and the …
8. State the two beyond-reasonable-doubt safeguards in current Rule 131, Section 6 and identify when they apply.
9. Why is proof of the basic fact alone not always enough to support a criminal presumption against the accused?
10. Compare the default civil-presumption rule in Section 5 with the safeguard for presumptions against an accused in Secti…
11. Does calling a guilt-establishing presumed fact merely a shortcut dispense with Rule131 Section6?
12. Does the number of authorities cited for a presumption itself prove the basic historical fact?