This is from the Illinois State Bar Association, but most jurisdictions have similar provisions:

[Atticus]

"If the court determines that a party has failed to produce evidence and has no reasonable excuse for failing to do so, the court may determine it was not produced because the evidence would be unfavorable to that party’s position. In the court’s discretion, the failure of a party to produce evidence may lead to the giving of a jury instruction about the presumption."

So, IN LAW, the withholding of documents and evidence within a party's control creates a presumption that the documents or evidence withheld is adverse to that party's interest in the litigation.

What Trump has done/is doing to hide documents and gag witnesses would lose his case for him in most any regular Court. Hopefully, it will have the same effect in the "Court of public Opinion".

[DonaldsRump]

1. I think that's effectively the presumption that the House took where no evidence/testimony provided

Somehow the Senate, I think, won't do that. Their default parroted position on this is that this would basically undermine the concept of innocent unless proven guilty and that the House should have subpoenaed the evidence/testimony.

[Backseat Driver]

2. Public opinion?

These "jurors" have an obligation by their vows of service, not to public opinion, but to our Constitution, under which we've been privileged to live with freedoms under law in spite of our opinions; otherwise, tyranny!

[brush]

3. Thanks for this info. Justice Roberts could do the same. Guess we'll see if he's...

just another repug hack or a Republican with integrity and respect for the Constitution like those who confronted Nixon back in the day and told him he had to go.