Adverse Inferences

[Stevicus]

Adverse inference - Wikipedia

Adverse inference is a legal inference, adverse to the concerned party, drawn from silence or absence of requested evidence. It is part of evidence codes based on common law in various countries.

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 to (the defendant), and adopt the plaintiff’s reasonable interpretation of what the document would have said...."[1]

Is it considered logical or reasonable to draw a conclusion based on silence or the absence of requested evidence? If evidence is hidden or destroyed or otherwise unavailable to be produced in court or some other formal setting, would it be valid to make an adverse inference?

I was reading about this in an article about the Watergate hearings and how Congress was getting frustrated with Nixon's attempts at stonewalling and refusals to hand over the tapes. There was also that 18 and a half minute gap on one of the tapes.

But then I considered how many other times where governments or corporations stonewall and refuse to give out information or make evidence available to the public. This leads to some people making "adverse inferences" of their own about government agencies, corporations, religious organizations, and so on. Of course, they're not generally raised in a formal trial, but they might be used in the court of public opinion.

Thoughts?

 

[Revoltingest]

Adverse inference - Wikipedia

Is it considered logical or reasonable to draw a conclusion based on silence or the absence of requested evidence? If evidence is hidden or destroyed or otherwise unavailable to be produced in court or some other formal setting, would it be valid to make an adverse inference?

I was reading about this in an article about the Watergate hearings and how Congress was getting frustrated with Nixon's attempts at stonewalling and refusals to hand over the tapes. There was also that 18 and a half minute gap on one of the tapes.

But then I considered how many other times where governments or corporations stonewall and refuse to give out information or make evidence available to the public. This leads to some people making "adverse inferences" of their own about government agencies, corporations, religious organizations, and so on. Of course, they're not generally raised in a formal trial, but they might be used in the court of public opinion.

Thoughts?

Silence is the safe default. This is true in the court of public opinion or of law.
When things are contentious, & especially if the stakes are high, opposing
sides will tease out the most damaging inferences or partial quotes, or even
invented quotes, & then make hay with those.
In court, I've never seen silence used against anyone. But any little ambiguity,
any small error, any potential negative inference.....those will be presented as
evidence. Judges & juries aren't always rational, & can be swayed by emotion.

If you're ever in a situation where public commentary is asked of you....
- Wait.
- Take your time to craft a statement.
- Ensure clarity & immunity to mischief.
- If spoken rather than written, display the appropriate emotions.
- Consider how to avoid ever being put in that position again.

 

[BSM1]

Silence is the safe default. This is true in the court of public opinion or of law.
When things are contentious, & especially if the stakes are high, opposing
sides will tease out the most damaging inferences or partial quotes, or even
invented quotes, & then make hay with those.
In court, I've never seen silence used against anyone. But any little ambiguity,
any small error, any potential negative inference.....those will be presented as
evidence. Judges & juries aren't always rational, & can be swayed by emotion.

If you're ever in a situation where public commentary is asked of you....
- Wait.
- Take your time to craft a statement.
- Ensure clarity & immunity to mischief.
- If spoken rather than written, display the appropriate emotions.
- Consider how to avoid ever being put in that position again.

Coincidentally, I made this statement to my wife just the other day: I never have to apologize for what I don't say.

 

[Revoltingest]

Coincidentally, I made this statement to my wife just the other day: I never have to apologize for what I don't say.

Always apologize.
And if you're brave, ask what for.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Coincidentally, I made this statement to my wife just the other day: I never have to apologize for what I don't say.

There are different philosophical views on that. Yours is not the only one.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[MNoBody]

explains why people who refuse to answer as it would incriminate them, hold silence, but it is pretty obvious as to why.... exactly what it might mean is another story though and may not be easily discerned just because someone held silence.... but silence is considered consent and agreement as well at times.
Why did they burn the library of alexandria, and why has there been an active program throughout times in history when knowledge gets destroyed by groups and what should we deduce from that?

 

[Stevicus]

Silence is the safe default. This is true in the court of public opinion or of law.
When things are contentious, & especially if the stakes are high, opposing
sides will tease out the most damaging inferences or partial quotes, or even
invented quotes, & then make hay with those.
In court, I've never seen silence used against anyone. But any little ambiguity,
any small error, any potential negative inference.....those will be presented as
evidence. Judges & juries aren't always rational, & can be swayed by emotion.

If you're ever in a situation where public commentary is asked of you....
- Wait.
- Take your time to craft a statement.
- Ensure clarity & immunity to mischief.
- If spoken rather than written, display the appropriate emotions.
- Consider how to avoid ever being put in that position again.

As far as silence not being used against anyone, couldn't a refusal to turn over evidence or answer direct questions be countered with a contempt-of-court charge? For example, journalists who refuse to reveal their sources.

 

[Revoltingest]

As far as silence not being used against anyone, couldn't a refusal to turn over evidence or answer direct questions be countered with a contempt-of-court charge? For example, journalists who refuse to reveal their sources.

That's not the same silence as declining to comment.
Now yer talk'n resistance to demands of authority.
That by itself could be criminal....or noble.

 

[MNoBody]

positive averment is another mode of response

 

[BSM1]

There are different philosophical views on that. Yours is not the only one.

Regards
Mikkel

I'm not saying anything...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not saying anything...

So you are not defending your view. And explaining how it is correct.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not saying anything...

A wise man (or woman) knows when to shut the glerc up.

 

[Heyo]

Adverse inference - Wikipedia

Is it considered logical or reasonable to draw a conclusion based on silence or the absence of requested evidence?

It is rational to assume that a defendant has an incentive to present evidence of her/his innocence. It is not rational to infer that withheld evidence is adverse, but it is rational to assume that defendant is OK with adverse inference (since s/he could debunk it but doesn't).
This has to be used with prudence since there are many ways to use this frivolously.