Law homework help

1. A presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a fact exists, based on the known or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts (Hails, 2014). It serves as a substitute for evidence. A conclusive presumption is a presumption that the law demands be made from a set of facts that also cannot be refuted by evidence. An example of this when a child is born, to a couple married and living together, it is assumed that this is the child of the husband. On the other hand, there are rebuttable presumptions. Here, the opposing side may try to disprove either the basic fact or the presumed fact using contradictory evidence. A presumption can be disproven with facts that prove otherwise. For example, if a person has gone missing, and they have not been found for years. They are presumed to be dead. This idea can be disproven, but only if that same individual is found alive. Because there is a stipulation of providing contradictory evidence to be rebuttable, there is a need for distinction between the two.

 

2. A contrast conclusive presumption proves facts to be true. Rebuttable presumptions is one that concludes an existing or non existing fact. The comparison between these two are that they both determine a conclusion one is completely fact based while the other is not. Yes, this distinction is crucial due to the fact that there is no mishandling of information or evidence to cause confusion within the court room and the jury.

 

3. Conclusive presumptions are presumptions that cannot be overturned by any evidence or argument brought up in a criminal proceeding. An example of conclusive presumptions is a child younger than seven is not capable of committing a crime. They do not have the mindset of a criminal because their mind is still developing. A rebuttable presumption is the opposite of a conclusive presumption. This can be proven to be false with the correct evidence. For example, if a child has gone missing for more than seven years it is likely they are presumed dead. This distinction is crucial in a criminal proceeding because it gives a common sense of an issue.

 

4. A presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a fact exists, based on the know or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts (Hails, 2018). The conclusive presumption is that the law does not allow to be rebutted, also called irrebuttable presumption (FindLaw, 2013). An example would be a child who is 5 years old. It is presumed that the 5-year-old is incapable of committing a crime that is considered a felony. A rebuttable presumption is the opposing side can attempt to disprove either the basic fact or the presumed fact (Hails, 2018). An example used all the time is in a criminal case, where a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The distinction is crucial in a criminal proceeding; not knowing the distinction between them can confuse and mishandle the information. It would even cause someone to be wrongly convicted or let go to be free and be guilty because of not knowing the distinction.

 

5. A presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a fact exists based on the known or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts (Hails, 2014). In other words, the judge instructs the jury to draw specific conclusions from the facts. Presumptions are usually divided into two types: conclusive and rebuttable. Conclusive presumptions are not as common but the opposing side can attack the basic fact but cannot attack the presumed fact. While rebuttable presumptions are divided even more into strong and weak. With a strong rebuttable presumption, the opposing side may attack either basic fact or presumed fact. With a weak rebuttable presumption, if the opposing side introduces evidence that disproves any part of the presumption then it is not told to the jury. With all presumptions the basic fact can be attacked, but only with rebuttable presumptions may the presumed fact be attacked. The basic fact can be attacked by making the witness not credible. I do believe the distinction is needed in criminal proceedings because without it the policy for the states regarding presumptions will be too broad. The more specific a policy is, the better it can be used because the attorneys will know how to use it and which one to use.

Hails, J. (2014). Criminal Evidence (Eighth ed.). Jaime Perkins.