In all United States Federal and State courts, the burden of proof starts on the party making an assertion (the "moving party"). Once a specific standard has been met (which varies on numerous conditions), the burden shifts to the "non-moving party." In criminal cases in the United States, the government must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while the defendant need do nothing. In civil cases, the party making an assertion must prove that assertion is more likely true than not. Still, if the moving party fails to meet that burden, the assertion is deemed false. The United States courts unequivocally find that the defending party need not do anything until the moving party meets its burden of proof. Note that in a number of other countries, criminal defendants bear the burden of proving that they are not guilty.
I removed this section, because the States' justice system's method of determining on whom to place the burden of proof is not relevant to the question of which philosophical beliefs possess the burden of proof.
The article states first that weak atheists differ from agnostics, and in the next sentence states tat many weak atheists are agnostics. Contractiction removed.