Affirmative Evidence Legal Definition

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self-defense. [1] In its simplest form, a defendant may be exempted if he can prove that he had an honest and reasonable presumption that the use of force by another was unlawful and that the defendant`s conduct was necessary to protect himself. [6] Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either party may file an application for a summary verdict on an affirmative defence. An affirmative defense is different from a “Holocaust denial defense.” A denial defense is a defense that tends to refute evidence of the plaintiff or prosecutor. An example could be a factual allegation in a charge of intentional possession of drugs, in which the defendant claims that he or she mistakenly believed that the object was an innocent substance like oregano. Since this defence simply demonstrates that an element of the crime (knowledge of the nature of the substance) is absent, the defendant has no burden of persuasion in relation to a denying defence. At most, the defendant has the burden of providing sufficient evidence to raise the issue. [11] In this regard, affirmative defences differ from ordinary defences (legal claim, alibi, childhood, necessity and self-defence (which is an affirmative defence at common law)), which the prosecution must rebut beyond a reasonable doubt. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.[12] the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that fair use is an affirmative defense against copyright infringement.

This means that in a dispute for copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of proof that the use was fair and not an infringement. However, fair use is not always an affirmative defence; Instead, the burden of persuasion may fall on the copyright owner in lawsuits for infringement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In one case where a notice of withdrawal issued under the DMCA was challenged, the Ninth Circuit in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. found that the applicant for withdrawal from the DMCA (who would then be the plaintiff in subsequent litigation) has the burden of reviewing fair dealing before filing the withdrawal request. “Even though, as Required by Universal, fair use is classified as an affirmative defense, we – for the purposes of the DMCA – hold the fair use of copyright only in our hands to be treated differently from traditional affirmative defenses. We conclude that since 17 U.S.C. § 107 has created a type of non-infringing use, fair dealing is “permitted by law” and a copyright owner must verify the existence of fair use before sending a notice of withdrawal in accordance with Article 512(c). [13] Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that affirmative defences be based on “knowledge, information and beliefs formed after an investigation appropriate to the circumstances” and cannot consist of a list of all known affirmative defences. [Citation needed] An affirmative defense against a civil action or criminal complaint is a fact or set of facts not alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor that, if proven by the defendant, nullify or mitigate the legal consequences of the defendant`s otherwise illegal conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include statute of limitations, fraud laws, waivers, and other affirmative defenses, such as those listed in Rule 8(c) of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In law enforcement, examples of positive defenses include self-defense[1], insanity,[2] trap,[3] and statute of limitations. There are disputes about whether some defenses are actually affirmative defenses or just standard defenses. For example, self-defense in Florida is an affirmative defense, but in Ohio it is not. If a defendant or person responding to a civil lawsuit has a reason that would make them “not guilty” or not guilty, and gives the court new evidence to prove it. The defence must prove what it says (the so-called “burden of proof”). The defence must explain this defence in its response. A defence raised in a reactive submission (response) to a new issue as a defence to the complaint; Affirmative defenses may include contributory negligence or be stopped in civil suits; In criminal cases, insanity, coercion or self-defence may be used. Since an affirmative defence requires the assertion of facts beyond those alleged by the applicant, the burden of proof generally lies with the party offering an affirmative defence.

[10] The standard of proof is generally lower than the unequivocal standard. It can be proven either by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of evidence. In an affirmative defense, the defendant may admit that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts that, by law, justify or excuse their otherwise unlawful acts or otherwise nullify the plaintiff`s claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called justification or apology defense. [4] Therefore, affirmative defences limit or excuse a defendant`s criminal guilt or civil liability. [5] Self-defense, trap, madness, necessity, and superior response are some examples of affirmative defenses. Most affirmative defences must be presented by a defendant in time for the court to consider them, or they are considered null and void if the defendant does not invoke them. The classic unwavering affirmative defense is the absence of material competence. [7] The issue of timely assertion is often the subject of a dispute at issue.

[Citation needed] Among the most controversial affirmative defences is the Defender of Insanity,[8] in which a criminal accused seeks to be released from criminal responsibility on the grounds that a mental illness at the time of the alleged crime prevented him from understanding the illegality of his actions. [9] Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the assertion of affirmative defenses in civil cases filed in U.S. District Court. Rule 8 (c) lists in particular the following objections: “Grant and satisfaction, arbitration and award, risk-taking, contributory negligence, discharge in the event of bankruptcy, confiscation, contempt, fraud, illegality, violation by staff, laughter, license, payment, release, legal force, fraud period, limitation period, waiver and any other matter constituting a challenge or affirmative defense.” Powered by Black`s Law Dictionary, Free 2nd ed. and The Law Dictionary.