The Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: A Comment on the Mullaney-Patterson Doctrine

Authors

Fernand N. Dutile, Notre Dame Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1980

Publication Information

55 Notre Dame Law. 380 (1980).

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court's recent ventures into the constitutional requirements concerning the burden of proof in criminal cases justify consideration of their prescriptions, of their consistency and of the constitutional limits of burden-shifting.

Mullaney and Patterson mark not the end of the inquiry but rather its beginning. Although they undoubtedly resolve, whether well or badly, a large number of burden of proof situations, those resolved may be the easier and the more obvious, not the more difficult and the more subtle. In any event, however, these two landmark cases will at least have alerted us to the complex problems presented in this important constitutional area.

Comments

Reprinted with permission of Notre Dame Law Review (previously Notre Dame Lawyer).

Recommended Citation

Fernand N. Dutile, The Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: A Comment on the Mullaney-Patterson Doctrine, 55 Notre Dame Law. 380 (1980)..
Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/910