Judicial presumptions Iranian and U.S. Legal systems

Abstract

The concept of judicial presumption, meaning the tool for presenting specific evidence in each case, is not only beyond the drafting and specific legal framework of each country but also an external reality that each legal system must address to ensure comprehensiveness and the assurance of justice. Naturally, the differences in legal traditions across various legal customs mean that different legal systems approach a single issue with significant differences. In this paper, we have examined the approach of the legal systems of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America to this concept. First, we discussed the generalities of comparative studies, of which this study is a derivative. Then, we presented the existing judicial practices regarding this issue in both legislative systems. We identified those fundamental legal concepts that have reciprocal effects with the concept of judicial presumption and examined them in the roots of each legal system with an approach to fundamental events and thoughts related to these concepts. Finally, we addressed the question of whether, despite the major differences in the legal approach to judicial presumptions, there can be seen strands of similarity in more fundamental adjacent concepts.