The Status of Judicial Presumption in the System of Evidence in the Legislative System of Iran and the Federal Rules of Evidence of the United States

Abstract

Judicial presumption, as one of the tools for discovering the truth in the judicial system, particularly in civil proceedings, holds a significant position. This paper meticulously examines this matter from the perspective of Iran's legislative system and the United States Federal Rules of Evidence. Thus, we faced certain questions and sought to provide convincing answers to the following issues: Firstly, how does the system of evidence view this matter, and secondly, what is the status of this evidentiary reasoning in the United States Federal Rules of Evidence? The present research adopts a descriptive and analytical approach, using a library-based method for data collection. The concept of judicial presumption, as a tool for presenting specific evidence in each case, is not only beyond the drafting and specific legal framework of each country but is also an external reality that every legal system must address to ensure comprehensiveness and justice. Initially, we presented general concepts of comparative studies, then discussed the existing judicial procedures in both legal systems, and identified those fundamental legal concepts that have mutual influence with the concept of judicial presumption. We examined these concepts in the context of the origins of each legal system with an approach that considers the fundamental events and thoughts surrounding these related concepts.