Michigan Rules of Evidence: A Guide to Rules 301-302
Presumptions, those inferences drawn from established facts, play a crucial role in both civil and criminal cases in Michigan.
However, their application is carefully regulated by the Michigan Rules of Evidence, specifically Rules 301 and 302.
This article delves into these rules, providing a clear understanding of their purpose, scope, and practical implications for legal professionals and anyone interested in the intricacies of Michigan’s evidentiary landscape.
Rule 301: Presumptions in Civil Cases
This rule governs the burden of proof related to presumptions in civil proceedings.
It states that unless a statute or other rule dictates otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut it.
This burden of production, however, is distinct from the burden of persuasion, which remains on the party who originally had it.
In essence, a presumption shifts the responsibility to present evidence to the opposing party, but the ultimate responsibility to convince the court of their claim rests with the party bearing the initial burden.
The Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook further clarifies the application of Rule 301.
It emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between rebuttable and conclusive presumptions.
Rebuttable presumptions, as described above, can be overcome by evidence, while conclusive presumptions are mandatory inferences that must be accepted by the jury.
The handbook also provides examples of common presumptions, such as the presumption of sanity, the presumption of legitimacy of a child born in wedlock, and the presumption of ownership arising from possession of property.
Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Have you been charged with a crime?
Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law 248-357-2550
Rule 302: Presumptions in Criminal Cases
For criminal proceedings, Rule 302 takes a different approach. It governs presumptions against a defendant, whether recognized at common law or created by statute.
Unlike Rule 301, Rule 302 doesn’t impose a burden of production on the defendant to rebut a presumption.
Instead, it emphasizes that the prosecution retains the ultimate burden of proving all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless it’s political of course.
The handbook elaborates on this key distinction.
It explains that the jury must be instructed that they may, but are not required to, infer the existence of the presumed fact from the basic facts presented.
This ensures that the jury retains its ultimate power to decide guilt or innocence based on the totality of the evidence, without being coerced by a presumption (in a perfect world).
Key Takeaways:
Civil cases: Presumptions in civil cases shift the burden of production, not the burden of persuasion, to the party against whom the presumption is directed.
Criminal cases: Presumptions against defendants in criminal cases do not shift the burden of proof. The jury must be instructed that they may infer the presumed fact, but are not obligated to do so.
Further Considerations:
The Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook offers valuable insights into the nuances of these rules, including the specific wording of jury instructions, the interplay of presumptions with other evidentiary rules, and the potential limitations of certain presumptions.
For legal professionals navigating complex cases involving presumptions, studying the handbook and consulting relevant case law is crucial for ensuring a comprehensive understanding and effective application of these rules.
By understanding the intricacies of Rules 301 and 302, legal professionals and anyone interested in Michigan’s evidentiary rules can navigate presumptions with confidence, ensuring fair and just outcomes in both civil and criminal proceedings.
Important:
This article provides a simplified overview of the Michigan Rules of Evidence for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance.
The Michigan Rules of Evidence are subject to change over time. Always consult the latest official version for accurate information.
Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook. Check the footer for the latest update.
Related Articles
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
More Posts
Defense attorneys seek fed inquiry of MSP crime labs
Southfield — Three defense attorneys are asking the federal government to investigate the Michigan State Police crime laboratories, alleging misconduct in their testing for pending drug cases. Southfield defense attorneys Neil Rockind and Michael Komorn, along...
MI Cops Change Policy So They Can Falsely Imprison Legal Pot Smokers
In 2008, an overwhelming majority of Michigan voters approved legislation to legalize marijuana for medical use in the state. With nearly 50,000 Michigan residents arrested and incarcerated each year for controlled substance violations, the state’s prison industrial...
Attorney Alleges Authorities `Bend The Science’ To Elevate Marijuana Cases
MIRS-Michigan Independent Source Of News and Information Friday Nov 6, 2015 Maxwell LORINCZ, of Spring Lake, says a fingerprint of oil on an empty plastic container led to his arrest on a drug charge on Sept. 24, 2014. Now, a year later, the case that might have...
Drug felonies without credible proof? — Allegations of politicking in state police crime labs
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – First on FOX 17, we broke serious allegations that state police crime labs are being told to falsely report marijuana test results. This is resulting in misleading lab reports that an attorney claims creates felonies without real proof. ...
Attorney: Crime labs ‘falsified’ marijuana reports
A Southfield lawyer alleges the Michigan State Police crime labs have “falsified lab reports on marijuana statewide” and he’s asking a judge to dismisses charges lodged against a client. Michael Komorn, who also represents defendants in Livingston County, said...
Hearing in alleged false crime lab marijuana reporting dropped this week
OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. – The evidentiary hearing originally set for Nov. 5 has been dropped in the case involving a medical marijuana patient charged with a disputed felony for synthetic THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The Ottawa County Assistant...
“A non-stop political game:” Former MSP Forensic Science director on false marijuana reporting …
DEWITT, Mich. – A former director of Michigan State Police Forensic Science addressed the serious allegations FOX 17 uncovered, which accuse the Attorney General’s office and state prosecutors of influencing state police crime labs to falsely report marijuana;...
Michigan’s medical marijuana law circumvented by crime labs’ THC reports, attorney charges
Posted on MLive 10/30/15 OTTAWA COUNTY, MI – An attorney claims prosecutors pressured state police crime labs to change the way THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is reported in an effort to circumvent Michigan's medical marijuana law. Michael...
Medical-Marijuana Patient Alleges Prosecutors Swayed Crime Lab Drug Tests
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 4:11pm A Michigan medical-marijuana patient claims in court papers that state police crime labs are bending to pressure from prosecutors in analyzing marijuana samples, leading to harsher punishments. Maxwell Lorincz, 35, was originally...
Allegations: MSP falsely reporting marijuana, targeting card-carrying patients
SPRING LAKE, Mich. – The defense representing a Spring Lake father facing a felony marijuana charge is accusing Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division crime labs of misreporting marijuana intentionally. It’s an allegation with statewide implications. ...