There are two types of legal presumptions: first, as established by the law itself, or presumptions of simple law; second, those that must be established by a jury, or presumptions of law and fact. The ancient Jewish code of law, the Talmud, contained arguments of conjecture (hazakah), statements that were believed to be true unless there was reason to believe otherwise, such as «One does not normally pay a debt before the deadline.»  These presumptions can be rebutted by evidence such as: A legal presumption is different from a factual presumption, which is an argument of fact from a fact; a conclusion in relation to an unknown fact based on a known fact. This conclusion may emerge from an earlier history of their connection; The hypothesis of the truth or the real existence of something, although there is no direct or positive evidence of the fact, but is based on circumstantial or probable evidence that makes it credible. The assumptions are either legal and artificial, or natural. Legal or artificial presumptions are those that derive from the law of a technical or artificial functioning and effect that go beyond their mere natural way. Tendency to generate faith and work uniformly without applying the argumentation process on which they are based to the circumstances of the individual case. For example, after twenty years, satisfaction must be presumed without payment of interest on an obligation or other acknowledgement of its existence; but when a single day of less than twenty years has elapsed, the presumption of satisfaction does not arise by the mere passage of time; This is, of course, an artificial and arbitrary distinction. A different kind of example is given under this heading by civilians. If a mother and her child die at the breast in the same conflagration, the law assumes that the mother survived and that the child died first because of her weakness, and for this reason the estate belongs to the heirs of the mother. «The distinction normally drawn between these two categories of presumptions is that the presumption of law is an arbitrary rule of law which, when one or more particular facts arise, is deemed to be established for the purposes of the case, either conclusively or until proven otherwise; that a presumption of fact is only a conclusion or a logical conclusion that the trial judge can draw or refuse. Examples of legal presumptions include: A conclusive presumption is a presumption in which the proof of certain facts renders the existence of the alleged fact indisputable. The presumption cannot be rebutted or rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
For example, it is believed that a child under the age of seven is incapable of committing a crime. There are very few conclusive presumptions because they are considered substantive law as opposed to evident. A rebuttable presumption is a presumption that can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. Federal rules of evidence and most state regulations deal only with refutable conjecture, not conclusive conjecture. There are two types of conjecture: the rebuttable presumption and the conclusive presumption. A rebuttable presumption is presumed until a person proves otherwise (for example, the presumption of innocence). On the other hand, a conclusive (or irrefutable) presumption can in no way be rebutted (such as the defence of children in some jurisdictions). Assumptions are sometimes divided into two types: conjectures without basic facts and conjectures with basic facts. In the United States, mandatory criminal presumptions are inadmissible, but permissible presumptions are permitted.
Hire the best business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees. A rule of law that allows a court to presume that a fact is true until there is a predominance (greater weight) of the evidence that refutes or outweighs (rebuts) the presumption. Each conjecture is based on a specific set of obvious facts, associated with established laws, logic, reasoning, or individual rights. A presumption is rebuttable to the extent that it can be rebutted by factual evidence. Facts can be presented to convince the judge that the presumption is not true. Examples: a child born to a husband and wife is considered the husband`s natural child, unless there is conclusive evidence that this is not the case; A person who has disappeared and has not been heard for seven years is presumed dead, but the suspicions could be refuted if found alive; The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. They are sometimes called rebuttable presumptions to distinguish them from absolute, conclusive or irrebuttable presumptions when legal and logical rules dictate that there is no way to rebut the presumption. However, if a fact is absolute, it is not real conjecture at all, but a certainty.
Presumptions of law and fact are artificial presumptions that are accepted and justified by law such as the conclusions that the jury must draw in certain circumstances; For example, the total refusal to hand over property at the request of the owner does not fall within the definition of conversion, but since imprisonment is accompanied by all the evils of conversion to the owner, the law equates it in its effects and consequences with a conversion by ordering or advising the jury to conclude from the facts of the claim and the rejection that there is conversion. A number of conjectures are found in most common law legal systems. Here are some examples of these conjectures: A presumption is defined by Black`s Law Legal Dictionary as a legal conclusion or assumption that a fact emerges on the basis of a known or proven existence or other fact or group of facts. With respect to domestic violence, it is presumed that a person responsible for domestic violence is not in the «best interests» of minor children in terms of custody. A legal presumption is a conclusion based on a specific set of facts, combined with established laws, logic, or reasoning. It is a rule of law that allows a court to presume that a fact is true until it is rebutted by the greatest preponderance of evidence against it. Natural conjectures depend on their own form and effectiveness in generating faith or conviction in the mind, as they flow from those contexts that experience indicates; they are totally independent of artificial contexts and relationships and differ from mere legal presumptions in this essential respect, whether they depend on the respective legal system to which they belong or are rather a branch; But mere natural assumptions are derived entirely from the common experience of humanity, the course of nature, and the ordinary habits of society. The same concept was found in ancient Roman law, where, for example, when there was doubt as to whether a child was really the business of someone who had left money in a will, the presumption was in favour of the child.  Medieval Roman law and canon law classified conjectures by force: light, medium or probable, and violent.  These gradations and many individual conjectures were adopted into English law by Edward Coke in the seventeenth century.  PRESUMPTION, evidence. A conclusion about the existence of one fact from the existence of another fact based on previous experience of its context.
3 Strong. Ev. 1234; 1 Phil. 116; Gilb. Ev. 142; Poth. Tr. des. Ob.part.
4, c. 3, p. 2, n. 840. Or it is an opinion about the circumstances that give rise to a fact in which they are supposed to participate. Menthuel on Conventions, liv. 1, tit. 5. 2. In order to support such a presumption, prior experience of the link between known facts and derived facts is indispensable, so that once the existence of one has been established, admitted or supposed, a conclusion as to the existence of the other arises independently of any reasoning on the subject.
It follows that a conclusion may or may not be certain, but only probable and can therefore be refuted by evidence to the contrary. 3. In general, a presumption is more or less strong, depending on whether the alleged fact is a necessary, usual or rare consequence of the fact or facts that have been seen, known or proven. If the derived fact is the necessary consequence of the known fact(s), the presumption is equivalent to the proof if it is the usual but not immutable consequence, the presumption is weak; But if sometimes, although rarely, it is the consequence of the known fact or facts, the conjecture is without weight. Menthuel on Conventions, Tit. 5. See Domat, liv. 9, Tit. 6 Dig. De probationibus et praesumptionibus.
4. The presumptions are either legitimate, artificial or natural. 5.-1. Legal or artificial presumptions are those that derive from the law a technical or artificial operation and effect that go beyond their mere natural way. Tendency to generate faith and work uniformly without applying the argumentation process on which they are based to the circumstances of the individual case. For example, after twenty years, satisfaction must be presumed without payment of interest on an obligation or other acknowledgement of its existence; but when a single day of less than twenty years has elapsed, the presumption of satisfaction does not arise by the mere passage of time; This is, of course, an artificial and arbitrary distinction.