Q: presumption vs indirect evidence

A: The main difference between a presumption and indirect evidence is as follows:

Presumption: A presumption is a legal inference that must be made by a court under certain circumstances. If a party establishes certain facts, the court must draw a particular conclusion (the presumption), unless the opposing party can rebut it with sufficient evidence. Presumptions are created by law and are based on probability, public policy, or fairness. For example, a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the child of the husband.

Indirect evidence (also known as circumstantial evidence): This is evidence that relies on inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. It tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which can be used to reasonably infer the occurrence of the fact at issue. For example, if a witness testifies that they saw the defendant leaving a building, and another witness states that they heard screaming from inside the building around the same time, this would be indirect evidence that the defendant committed the crime. It requires the fact-finder to make a logical connection between the evidence and the fact to be proven.

Key differences:

1. A presumption is a legal inference the court must make, while indirect evidence allows the fact-finder to infer a fact but does not require it.

2. Presumptions are created by law, while inferences from indirect evidence are based on logical reasoning.

3. Presumptions shift the burden of proof, while indirect evidence does not.

So in summary, presumptions are legal tools that require a court to draw certain conclusions when particular facts are established, unless rebutted. Indirect evidence provides facts from which conclusions may be logically inferred, but such inferences are not legally required. Both, however, are used to establish facts in a case.