14 ms·
Adverse inference should be be applied. Seriously.
by ranting-moth 3y ago
Adverse inference should be be applied. Seriously.
- Aachen 3y agoFor anyone else to whom this term is new: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference > is a legal inference, adverse to the concerned party, drawn from silence or absence of requested evidence. [...] According to Lawvibe, "the 'adverse inference' can be quite damning at trial. Essentially, when plaintiffs try to present evidence on a point essential to their case and can't because the document has been destroyed (by the defendant), the jury can infer that the evidence would have been adverse The first paragraph sounds a lot like "assume the worst in people" (must be a nice way to go through life); the second paragraph specifies it only in the case of intentionally destroyed evidence (that seems reasonable when you can know it was intentional). Interesting concept
- ranting-moth 3y ago> This rule applies not only to evidence destroyed but also to evidence existing but not produced by the party. If the police is refusing to release a video to prove their stance, there is absolutely no need to give the police the benefit of the doubt.