Opinion ID: 574686
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mandatory Rebuttable Presumption

Text: 7 As written, the statute creates a rebuttable presumption that a person is engaged in the business of transferring obscene material if certain criteria set forth in the statute are met. Defendants contend that the presumption is mandatory because the statute reads [the criteria] shall create a rebuttable presumption that the person so offering them is 'engaged in the business'.... 18 U.S.C. § 1466(b) (1988). 8 Use of a rebuttable mandatory presumption in a criminal prosecution amounts to a violation of due process guaranteed by the Constitution because it relieves the State of the affirmative burden of persuasion on the presumed element by instructing the jury that it must find the presumed element unless the defendant persuades the jury not to make such a finding. Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 317 (1985). 9 In the case before us, the trial judge recognized that the charging statute, as written, could violate defendants' due process protections. She therefore instructed the jury in terms of a permissive inference. Consequently, we decline to rule on the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1466 as written, and instead turn to the propriety of the trial court's instruction.