Criminal lawyers regard burdens of proof placed on the accused with deep suspicion. Recently, this suspicion has spurred an interest in how to reconcile these so-called ‘reverse burdens’ with the rule that it is for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. Though views on this differ among commentators, all reach their conclusions by reference to the presumption of innocence (PoI). Unfortunately, such analysis frequently falls prey to a serious error. Namely, the existing literature fails to adequately distinguish the thin conception of the PoI (a trial rule) from a thick PoI (a general norm of the criminal law) or ignores the distinction entirely. In either case, failure to appreciate this distinction and attend to its consequences raises significant doubt that existing analyses of reverse burdens are sound. This article addresses this failure and offers a fresh approach to reconciling reverse burdens and the PoI.

刑事律师对被告的举证责任深表怀疑。最近，这种怀疑激发了人们对如何调和这些所谓的“反向负担”的兴趣，其规则是，在刑事审判中，控方必须证明自己有罪，而毋庸置疑。尽管评论员对此有不同的看法，但所有观点都参考无罪推定（PoI）得出结论。不幸的是，这种分析经常成为严重错误的牺牲品。即，现有文献未能充分区分PoI（审判规则）的狭义概念与厚实的PoI（刑法的一般规范），或完全忽略了这一区分。无论哪种情况，如果不理解这种区别并承担后果，都会引起人们极大的怀疑，即对反向负担的现有分析是否正确。