Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
But the most interesting aspect is commentary by the Court regarding presumption of innocence: The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ...
In Director of Public Prosecutions v.Labavarde and Anor, Neerunjun C.J. said that article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 6(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms would be infringed if "the whole burden is ... cast on the defence by the creation of a presumption of guilt on the mere preferment of the criminal charge".
This fallacy can be also confused with petitio principii (begging the question), [10] which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion. [11] Closely connected with [petitio principii] is the fallacy of the Complex Question. By a complex question, in the broadest meaning of that term, is meant one ...
In law, a presumption is an "inference of a particular fact". [1] There are two types of presumptions: rebuttable presumptions and irrebuttable (or conclusive) presumptions. [2]: 25 A rebuttable presumption will either shift the burden of production (requiring the disadvantaged party to produce some evidence to the contrary) or the burden of proof (requiring the disadvantaged party to show the ...
Naturalistic fallacy fallacy is a type of argument from fallacy. Straw man fallacy – refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. [110] Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. [111]
Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979), is a United States Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the prosecution's burden of proof of the mental element of a crime by striking down a jury instruction that "the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts". [1]
Department of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the government is not entitled to a presumption that a source is confidential within the meaning of Exemption 7(D) of the Freedom of Information Act whenever the source provides information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the course of a criminal investigation.
In California, there is a carefully prescribed procedure governing such request, and making disclosure without an order is a crime. The statutory scheme was developed, in part, because law enforcement departments had developed a practice of purging their files concerning misconduct claims made against their officers. [20]