- an inference is unreasonable if it requires the jury to engage in a degree of speculation and conjecture that renders its findings a guess or mere possibility; after all, inferences must stop at some point; to this end, at some point along a rational continuum, inferences may become so attenuated from underlying evidence as to cast doubt on the trier of fact's ultimate conclusion
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.E.2 · Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences
Trial Presumptions, Inferences
28 digested opinions, 1999–2024 Terms
2024 (October Term)
- a permissive inference, also called a permissive presumption, is a presumption that a trier of fact is free to accept or reject from a given set of facts
2023 (October Term)
- the use of conclusive presumptions to establish the elements of an offense is unconstitutional because such presumptions conflict with the presumption of innocence and invade the province of the trier of fact
- whether any given conduct violates clause 2 is a question for the trier of fact to determine, based upon all the facts and circumstances; it cannot be conclusively presumed from any particular course of conduct
- a military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it correctly, absent clear evidence to the contrary
- the presumption that the military judge knows and follows the law is only as valid as the law itself
- there is a strong presumption that a judge is impartial, and a party seeking to demonstrate bias must overcome a high hurdle, particularly when the alleged bias involves actions taken in conjunction with judicial proceedings
- to prove judicial bias, a party must overcome a high hurdle because there exists a strong presumption that a judge is impartial
2018 (October Term)
- a military judge is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented
2014 (September Term)
- an unconstitutional presumptive conclusion arises when the military judge instructs members that they must conclude that evidence of the charged conduct also satisfies the terminal element; such an instruction is unconstitutional because it relieves the government of its burden of proof, subverts the presumption of innocence accorded to accused persons, and also invades the truth-finding task assigned solely to juries in criminal cases
2013 (September Term)
- a waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege; there is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, although no magic words are required to establish a waiver; the determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case
2010 (September Term)
- the use of conclusive presumptions to establish the elements of an offense is unconstitutional because such presumptions conflict with the presumption of innocence and invade the province of the trier of fact
- a presumption that possession of child pornography is conclusively service discrediting under clause 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, is constitutionally impermissible
2008 (September Term)
- members are presumed to follow a military judge’s instructions to consider evidence for a proper purpose, such as bias or motive to misrepresent, and not let personal beliefs or feelings affect their determinations about witness credibility
- a military judge can presume, in the absence of contrary circumstances, that the accused is sane and, furthermore, that counsel is competent
2008 (Transition Term)
- in the context of the aggravated assault offense, the MCM explains that when the natural and probable consequence of a particular use of any means or force would be death or grievous bodily harm, it may be inferred that the means or force is “likely” to produce that result
- under MRE 314(d), a person, under normal circumstances, is presumed not to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in government property that is not issued for personal use; the presumption that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in government property, however, is rebuttable
- an accused is presumed to be sane and counsel is presumed to be competent
2007
- an inference of guilt stemming from the accused shaving all of his body hair after learning that investigators wished to procure a hair sample from him to test for drug use was permissible under the consciousness of guilt doctrine; there exists longstanding precedent that, while such behavior may not give rise to a presumption of guilt, it nonetheless can, within certain constraints, be entered into evidence and commented upon; moreover, the effect of the accused shaving his body in this case was essentially the destruction of evidence; that an inference of consciousness of guilt can be drawn from the destruction of evidence is well-recognized in the law
2005
- an order is presumed to be lawful, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting the presumption
2003
- in strict legal terms, the presumption of innocence flows from the fundamental right to a fair trial; the right to a fair trial is a fundamental liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment; the presumption of innocence, although not articulated in the Constitution, is a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice
- the presumption of innocence is a longstanding feature of both military and civilian law; it is a critical part of our tradition of justice and deeply imbedded in our culture as well as our systems of justice; as reflected in the language of Article 51(c)(1), UCMJ, the presumption of innocence is directly related to the requirement that guilt be established by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; put another way, the presumption of innocence embodies the principle that one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely on the basis of the evidence introduced at trial, and not on grounds of official suspicion, indictment, continued custody, or other circumstances not adduced as proof at trial
- marital communications are presumptively confidential; therefore, once the party asserting the marital communications privilege establishes the existence of a private communication between spouses who are not separated, the burden of production shifts to the opposing party to overcome the presumption of confidentiality
- even though marital communications are presumed to be confidential, several factors are relevant in determining whether that presumption has been overcome: (1) the nature of the circumstances; (2) the substance of the communication; (3) the existence or nonexistence of an expressed timeline or particular plan for disclosure; and (4) whether the statement is actually shared with a third party
2002
- there is a strong presumption that a judge is impartial, and a party seeking to demonstrate bias must overcome a high hurdle; remarks, comments, or rulings of a judge do not constitute bias or partiality unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible
- an adverse inference instruction is an appropriate curative measure for improper destruction of evidence
- the presumption of innocence is set forth in the statutory requirement that, prior to findings, the members of a court-martial must be instructed that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; although not literally employing a presumption, the instruction reminds the members of the critical fact that the accused, as a matter of law, is innocent unless the members are satisfied the prosecution has proved each required element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; practically, the presumption of innocence serves to underscore the instruction that the members may not presume that the defendant is guilty simply because charges have been referred to trial
2001
- orders are clothed with an inference of lawfulness
2000
- once raised by evidence, the appearance or existence of unlawful command influence creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice
- a general regulation is entitled to a presumption of regularity if it appears regular on its face
- a general regulation is entitled to a presumption of regularity if it appears regular on its face
1999
- to sustain a drug prosecution based upon an urinalysis and to support the inferences of knowing and wrongful use, the test results must be supported by expert testimony explaining the underlying scientific methodology and the significance of the test result, so as to provide a rational basis for the inferences of knowing and wrongful use
- to support the inference of wrongful use of drugs, the prosecution’s expert testimony must show: (1) that the metabolite is not naturally produced by the body or any substance other than the drug in question; (2) that the cutoff level and reported concentration are high enough to reasonably discount the possibility of unknowing ingestion and to indicate a reasonable likelihood that the user at some time would have experienced the physical and psychological effects of the drug; and (3) that the testing methodology reliably detected the presence and reliably quantified the concentration of the drug or metabolite in the sample
- orders requiring the performance of military duties are presumed to be lawful when issued by superiors, but that order must relate to a military duty. See para. 14c(2)(a)(i) and (iii), Part IV, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.)
- Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces not inclined to recognize presumption that improper considerations of grade and rank were purposefully utilized by convening authority to stack courts based upon the composition of appellant’s court-martial and that of other panels within the command
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIE2 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).