Question — Decretum of Gratian
Question V
GRATIAN. That, when the accuser fails, the defendant is not to be compelled to proof is proved by the authority of Gregory, who, [book V, letter 25], writing to Maximus, says:
GRATIANUS. Quod autem deficiente accusatore reus non sit cogendus ad probationem, auctoritate Gregorii probatur, qui [lib. V. epist. 25.] scribens Maximo ait:
Friedberg, col. 565/566
C. I. The burden of proof does not lie upon the defendant.
As for your request that we ought to direct a person there through whom there can be proof concerning the things that are said, it would in some measure be excusable if legal reason ever imposed a necessity of proof upon the one who is accused. But since this burden lies not upon you but upon the accusers, do not fail to come to us without delay, as we said before. GRATIAN. The accused ought to prove not his denial but his exception:
C. I. Onus probationis reo non incumbit.
Quod autem postulas, ut illuc personam dirigere debeamus, qua de his, que dicuntur, possit esse probatio, esset utcumque excusabile, si umquam ratio ei, qui accusatur, necessitatem probationis inponeret. At postquam non tibi, sed accusantibus hoc onus incumbit, ad nos, sicut prefati sumus, dilatione cessante uenire non desinas. Gratian. Accusatus non negationem, sed exceptionem probare debet:
Friedberg, col. 565/566
[C. II.]
GRATIAN. This, however, is to be observed when public report does not vex the defendant. For then, by the authority of the same Gregory, in order to remove scandal, the defendant ought to purge his reputation.
[C. II.].
[Gratian.] Hoc autem seruandum est, quando reum publica fama non uexat. Tunc enim auctoritate eiusdem Gregorii propter scandalum remouendum, famam suam reum purgare oportet.
Friedberg, col. 565/566