Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ohio (1986) established that states may make justification an affirmative defense, placing the burden of proof on defendant. [ 1 ] : 18 Patterson v. New York (1977) established that states may make excuses, such as involving mental state, an affirmative defense, rather than part of the mens rea element the prosecution must prove beyond a ...
A one-party state, single-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a governance structure in which only a single political party controls the ruling system. [1] In a one-party state, all opposition parties are either outlawed or enjoy limited and controlled participation in elections .
from [for] one party A decision reached, or case brought, by or for one party without the other party being present. ex post: from after Based on knowledge of the past. ex post facto: from a thing done afterward Commonly said as "after the fact." ex post facto law
A "burden of proof" is a party's duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge, and includes the burden of production (providing enough evidence on an issue so that the trier-of-fact decides it rather than in a peremptory ruling like a directed verdict) and the burden of persuasion (standard of proof such as preponderance of the evidence).
In a legal dispute, one party is initially presumed to be correct and gets the benefit of the doubt, while the other side bears the burden of proof. When a party bearing the burden of proof meets their burden, the burden of proof switches to the other side. Burdens may be of different kinds for each party, in different phases of litigation.
Sanity is a rebuttable presumption and the burden of proof is on the party denying it; the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, that is to say that mental incapacity is more likely than not. If this burden is successfully discharged, the party relying upon it is entitled to succeed.
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. [1]
Probatio diabolica (Latin for "devil's proof" or "diabolical proof") is a legal requirement to achieve an impossible proof.Where a legal system would appear to require an impossible proof, the remedies are reversing the burden of proof, or giving additional rights to the individual facing the probatio diabolica.