bears the ultimate burden of persuasion as to the adequacy of the forum. See, e.g., Norex, 416 F.3d at 159-160. When the district court granted Pfizer’s motion, it identified the pivotal issue as whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to show that Nigeria is an inadequate alternative forum. Abdullahi III, 2005 WL 1870811, at *15. Having found that they had not, it concluded that Nigeria was an adequate forum. Id. at *16-18. In so doing, the district court omitted an analysis of whether Pfizer discharged its burden of persuading the court as to the adequacy and present availability of the Nigerian forum and improperly placed on plaintiffs the burden of proving that the alternative forum is inadequate. Cf. DiRienzo v. Philip Servs. Corp., 294 F.3d 21, 30 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). On remand, the district court will have an
holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding the states reference to the defendants lack of remorse was error because it was a comment on the defendants assertion of his constitutional rights to plead not guilty and require the state to carry its burden of proof recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it holding that it is error not to hold defendants to their burden of proof of the gilbert factors holding that such factors may constitute a substantial burden