burden to overcome presumption in Alabama

2026See State v. Moyers, 214 So. 3d 1147, 1150-51 (Ala. 2014) (noting that, "for the trial court to deny a request for bail from a defendant charged with a capital offense," the "State must prove the … prerequisites noted in Ex parte Patel," but that, "if a defendant has been indicted for a capital offense, that defendant is presumed guilty for purposes of setting bail, and the defendant has the burden to overcome that presumption"), and Burks v. State, 600 So. 2d 374, 381 (Ala. Crim.

2026See State v. Moyers, 214 So. 3d 1147, 1150-51 (Ala. 2014) (noting that, "for the trial court to deny a request for bail from a defendant charged with a capital offense," the "State must prove the … prerequisites noted in Ex parte Patel," but that, "if a defendant has been indicted for a capital offense, that defendant is presumed guilty for purposes of setting bail, and the defendant has the burden to overcome that presumption"), and Burks v. State, 600 So. 2d 374, 381 (Ala. Crim.

2026If the answer to the foregoing question is YES then the defendant is not entitled to bond[;] if the answer is NO then bond should be granted. " 'A safe rule for a trial court to follow "is to deny bail if the court could sustain a capital conviction by a jury based on the same evidence taken at the hearing seeking bail; and to allow bail if the evidence is not so efficacious." Webb v. State, 35 Ala. App. 575, 576 , 50 So. 2d 451, 452 (1951); Roddam v. State, 33 Ala. App. 356 , 33 So. 2d 384 (1948).' "In this case it is clear the defendant has the burden to overcome the presumption for purposes

2026If the answer to the foregoing question is YES then the defendant is not entitled to bond[;] if the answer is NO then bond should be granted. " 'A safe rule for a trial court to follow "is to deny bail if the court could sustain a capital conviction by a jury based on the same evidence taken at the hearing seeking bail; and to allow bail if the evidence is not so efficacious." Webb v. State, 35 Ala. App. 575, 576 , 50 So. 2d 451, 452 (1951); Roddam v. State, 33 Ala. App. 356 , 33 So. 2d 384 (1948).' "In this case it is clear the defendant has the burden to overcome the presumption for purposes

2026The defendant then presented several witnesses on his behalf, though none of those witnesses 5More recently, in State v. Moyers, 214 So. 3d 1147, 1150-51 (Ala. 2014), this Court acknowledged that, "if a defendant has been indicted for a capital offense, that defendant is presumed guilty for purposes of setting bail, and the defendant has the burden to overcome that presumption before he or she is entitled to bail as a matter of right." However, the only issue that was actually before the Court in that case was whether a trial court could deny bail to a defendant who has been indicted for capit

2026Likewise, as recently as 2014, we declared, albeit in dicta, that, "if a defendant has been indicted for a capital offense, that defendant is presumed guilty for purposes of setting bail, and the defendant has the burden to overcome that presumption before he or she is entitled to bail as a matter of right." Moyers, 214 So. 3d at 1150-51 .

2017Quite simply, “normally a court in this state has no jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding eligibility under the rules of the [Association].” Alabama High School Athletic Ass’n v. Medders, 456 So.2d 284, 286 (Ala. 1984) (emphasis added).

2009The trial court stated in its order that the testimony of Wilding’s witnesses is “uncontroverted by the state, and the state further elected not to offer any testimony on the quality or strength of its case.” Standard of Review This Court recently restated the standard by which it reviews a petition for a writ of mandamus: “ ‘ “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy ... requiring a showing that there is: ‘(1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another adequate remedy;