Legal Definitions - pyramiding inferences, rule against

Pyramiding inferences, rule against, is a legal principle that prohibits a fact-finder from making a conclusion based on a chain of inferences. This means that a fact-finder cannot pile one inference on top of another to arrive at a conclusion.

Although this rule was once followed in many jurisdictions, today it is only followed in a few.

For example, let's say that a witness testifies that they saw a person running away from a crime scene. The fact-finder cannot then infer that the person was the one who committed the crime based solely on this testimony. They must have additional evidence to support this conclusion.

Another example would be if a witness testifies that they saw a car speeding away from a bank robbery. The fact-finder cannot then infer that the driver of the car was the one who committed the robbery. They must have additional evidence to support this conclusion.

These examples illustrate the principle of pyramiding inferences, rule against, because they show that a fact-finder cannot make a conclusion based solely on one inference. They must have additional evidence to support their conclusion.