Abstract
This paper explores the concept of judicial presumption and its role in criminal evidence, focusing on Jordanian legislation while incorporating a comparative analysis. It begins by defining judicial presumption and distinguishing it from other forms of evidence, such as legal and civil presumptions. The paper outlines the similarities and differences between criminal and civil judicial presumptions, highlighting the flexibility in criminal matters where the judge has broader discretion in forming convictions. It further examines the nuances of evidence and its importance in criminal proceedings, noting the distinctions between direct evidence and indirect indications. The study reviews relevant Jordanian legal texts and judicial decisions, presenting insights into how judicial presumption is applied in practice. It concludes with findings and recommendations aimed at improving the legal framework and judicial practices, emphasizing the need for clear definitions, enhanced judicial expertise, and effective case management. This comparative study underscores the significance of judicial presumption in strengthening the integrity and reliability of criminal evidence.