Abstract
In County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, the Supreme Court stated: "inferences and presumptions are a staple of our adversary system of factfinding." Because Allen concerned the constitutionality of the use against criminal defendants of such deductive devices as statutory inferences and presumptions, it appeared that the decision would ultimately favor their unrestricted use in criminal cases by the prosecution. Further, that expectation was buttressed by the ruling in Patterson v. New York, in which the Court awarded constitutional sanction to state use of affirmative defenses against criminal defendants. These facts suggested that the Court would refrain from imposing constitutional restraints on the state's criminal use of statutory inferences and presumptions. In fact, the Allen Court severely restricted the prosecutor's ability to rely on those two devices. The purpose of this Article is to explain the rationale of the Allen Court.
First Page
277
Recommended Citation
John C. Sheldon,
Presumptions Against Criminal Defendants, Affirmative Defenses, and a Substantive Due Process Interpretation of County Court of Ulster v. Allen,
34
Me. L. Rev.
277
(1982).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol34/iss2/7
