English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-16 10:59:01 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

I will give 10 points to the first person with a good detailed answer

2006-11-17 12:47:53 · update #1

4 answers

"Inference" is a presumption, to "infer" something. So, for example, you hit someone in the face. "Assault" is defined as defendant's physical contact with a person with the intent to cause harm. A jury can "infer" that you intended the reasonable consequences of your actions. Thus, if the evidence is that you swung your fist at the guy's face, the jury can make the "inference" that you did so with the intent to harm, and convict you of assault.

2006-11-16 11:12:59 · answer #1 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0 0

1

2016-06-10 21:33:19 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

If the prosecution can prove a basic fact, the jury is permitted to infer a second fact. As an example, if the prosecution can show that your blood alcohol was over .04, the jury is permitted to infer that you were impaired. A permissible inference is optional, a presumption is mandatory. For instance, if the prosecution can prove that your blood alcohol was, say, .10, the jury must find that you were impaired.

2006-11-16 11:07:12 · answer #3 · answered by mattapan26 7 · 0 0

Whether criminal or civil, an inference is a conclusion drawn from circumstantial evidence.

2006-11-16 11:23:18 · answer #4 · answered by Pete 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers