The Stolen Valor Act

[Barrister]

However, I am also somewhat disturbed that the defendant needs to prove innocence rather than the prosecution guilt. Is this from the Franco-Canadian tradition of jurisprudence?

See my response to grumbler.  The defendant doesn't need to prove their innocence.  But, once the Crown has proven the person was wearing the uniform, the defendant must prove they wore it with lawful authority.

Yeah. The burden of proof of exculpating circumstances rests on the defendant. Same goes for pretty much any defense - for example in a murder case, the burden of proof that the killing was in self-defense is on the defendant.

That's not the case in Canadian law.  The Crown has to negative self-defense (once it has been raised).

[Martinus]

How can you prove the negative? Surely they have to disprove any evidence raised by the defendant, but not prove lack of self-defense if there is no evidence presented to the contrary (including no testimony of the defendant)? 

[Barrister]

How can you prove the negative? Surely they have to disprove any evidence raised by the defendant, but not prove lack of self-defense if there is no evidence presented to the contrary (including no testimony of the defendant)? 

Essentially, once the defendant has raised a defense with an 'air of reality', the Crown must disprove the defense as it is an element of the offense.  Essentially, if the victim says 'the accused stabbed me', that should be good enough.  But if the accused says 'yeah, well he threatened to kill me which is why I stabbed him', self-defense has been raised, and we must negative that element beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Martinus]

Ok I see your point. So the standard of proof is higher when it comes to the defense under this uniform law, is that what you are saying?