Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maroon 300D
Well I stand corrected!
|
Maroon, it is a common misconception; fueled by years of fictional movies and TV victims saying: "I am not going to press charges..."
The other misconceptions:
1. The standard of proof (in a criminal case) is: "
beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Few things, if any, can ever be proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt." (Look at the religious debate raging in the "If I die tomorrow ..." thread.
)
2. A defendant is NOT "...innocent until proven guilty." A defendant is "...presumed innocent until proven guilty." A person is simply not "innocent" one moment and then "guilty" the next -- after the jury returns a guilty verdict.
A defendant is cloaked with the "presumption" of innocence at the beginning of the trial. That presumption stays with him/her throughout the trial until after all the evidence has been heard and the jury returns its verdict. It is only, however, a "presumption" or a starting point. It is not a "magical" grant of "innocence."
For example, let's say that one of you is sitting in a cafe drinking a capuccino and eating a croissant. Someone comes in and shoots you dead in full view of twelve bishops, twelve nuns and twelve ministers (just to pick a random group of people
). At the defendant's murder trial, he is presumed innocent even while the 12 bishops, 12 nuns and 12 ministers are testifying about what each saw ("...pulled the gun, walked up to victim, said something about the Benz wiring harness, and then shot the victim dead").
The defendant is not "innocent," hell, he is as guilty as sin (to contine with the religious motif). No one can take his/her guilt away. He is just "presumed" innocent.
If the prosecution fails to meets its burden of proof and the jury finds the defendant "not guilty" (notice, that they don't find him "innocent" just "not guilty" -- big difference) the defendant is not innocent of the shooting. He is still guilty of killing a person, the prosecution just couldn't prove it. Look at the OJ criminal trial. The prosecution couldn't prove him guilty, but that does not make OJ "innocent."
In fact, if a defendant who is not convicted of a crime wants to walk away with the label "innocent" attached to him/her, he has to apply to the court for the judge to make an actual and factual finding of innocence. A "not guilty" verdict is not enough, there has to be a factual finding of "innocence." In California those post-trial motions are seldom made (defense attorneys know that most, if not all, of their clients are guilty, regardless of what the lawyers may claim in public and are only too happy to walk away with a "no guilty" verdict) and the motions are seldom granted.
Sorry about the long-winded post. I thought the info may be interesting to some.