Burden of proof in "I have been framed" cases

[mr friendly guy]

Where should the burden of proof lie from 1) legal perspective and 2) logic perspective (I am not sure if they are necessary the same).

Using an example of a beauty student caught with drugs in their bag while travelling to say Indonesia (Aussies will find this sounds familiar). That person claims that the drugs must have been planted on them and that they were framed.

To my mind, for the prosecution to prove possession of drugs, they would have to show that the defendent was carrying drugs (not an issue since both sides don't dispute this claim). If the defendent was going to argue "I have been framed", would the burden of proof not fall on them to show evidence of this? If they can't, occam's razor would suggest that the defendent is guilty.

[Petrosjko]

That's where 'reasonable doubt' comes into play. Yes, it does shift a burden onto the defense, but presumption of innocence does not preclude having to demonstrate the validity of innocence by means of presentation of evidence. There are no cases where the defense doesn't have to work to establish some evidence in order to create the reasonable doubt.

Mind you, that's American law. My knowledge of Aussie jurisprudence is thin, to say the least.

[Stofsk]

Mind you, that's American law. My knowledge of Aussie jurisprudence is thin, to say the least.

Worse. The woman in question was nabbed in Indonesia.

So it's... complicated.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I dont know whether it is called an affirmative defense... in either case it shifts the burden of proof on to the defense.