<P> In Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994), the Supreme Court explained that burden of proof is ambiguous because it has historically referred to two distinct burdens: the burden of persuasion, and the burden of production . </P> <P> The Supreme Court discussed how courts should allocate the burden of proof (i.e., the burden of persuasion) in Schaffer ex rel . Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005). The Supreme Court explained that if a statute is silent about the burden of persuasion, the court will "begin with the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims ." In support of this proposition, the Court cited 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 337, 412 (5th ed. 1999), which states: </P> <P> The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the plaintiff who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion . </P> <P> At the same time, the Supreme Court also recognized "The ordinary default rule, of course, admits of exceptions...For example, the burden of persuasion as to certain elements of a plaintiff's claim may be shifted to defendants, when such elements can fairly be characterized as affirmative defenses or exemptions . See, e.g., FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37, 44 - 45 (1948). Under some circumstances this Court has even placed the burden of persuasion over an entire claim on the defendant . See Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004)." Nonetheless, "(a) bsent some reason to believe that Congress intended otherwise, therefore, (the Supreme Court) will conclude that the burden of persuasion lies where it usually falls, upon the party seeking relief ." </P>

Trusts a burden on the rest of us