Presumptions, Burden of Proof, and the Conflict of Laws

1930 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 1134
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Conflict Of Laws

scholarly journals Zum kollisionsrechtlichen Umgang mit sachenrechtlichen Eigentumsvermutungen aus dem Besitz

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 90-98
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Zivanic
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The Other ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The One ◽  
Made In

A presumption is made in the favour of the possessor of a movable thing that he is the owner of the thing, and likewise it is presumed that a former possessor was the owner during the term of his possession. However, legal presumptions such as those behind the German Civil Code’s §1006, subsections 1 and 2 (or §90 of the Estonian Law of Property Act) are shifting the burden of proof to the other party, the one who is not or was not the possessor of the movable. The paper examines the attendant issues with regard to conflict of laws, with the conclusion that it remains unclear whether legal presumptions arising from possession should be qualified by the lex rei sitae doctrine (per the Introductory Act to the German Civil Code, Article 43, Subsection 1), instead as ‘rights over an object’ (under that article’s Subsection 2), or in line with procedural regulations (lex fori).

The CSI Effect

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Chin
Keyword(s):  
Forensic Science ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Juror Decision Making ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Television Programs ◽  
Forensic Evidence ◽  
Csi Effect ◽  
Real Phenomenon ◽  
Scene Investigation

The CSI Effect posits that exposure to television programs that portray forensic science (e.g., CSI: Crime Scene Investigation) can change the way jurors evaluate forensic evidence. The most commonly researched hypothesis under the CSI Effect suggests that shows like CSI depict an unrealistically high standard of forensic science and thus unreasonably inflate the expectations of jurors. Jurors are thus more likely to vote to acquit, and prosecutors face higher burden of proof. We review (1) the theory behind the CSI Effect, (2) the perception of the effect among legal actors, (3) the academic treatment of the effect, and (4) how courts have dealt with the effect. We demonstrate that while legal actors do see the CSI Effect as a serious issue, there is virtually no empirical evidence suggesting it is a real phenomenon. Moreover, many of the remedies employed by courts may do no more than introduce bias into juror decision making or even trigger the CSI Effect when it would not normally occur (i.e., the self-fulfilling prophesy). We end with suggestions for the proper treatment of the CSI Effect in courts, and directions for future scholarly work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document