Presumed Innocent; Not Guilty; & Guilty [View all]

[H2O Man]

There have been enough posts regarding "don't judge Zimmerman" and the right to presumed innocent, that a few moments ago, I mistook a tongue-in-cheek OP for the real thing. Throughout life, I have made my share of errors -- and admittedly have made an ass of myself from time to time. That said, I will attempt to pay my dues, so to speak, by addressing a couple of the issues in cases like Zimmerman's.

Such cases of violence, which destroy human lives, outrage people .... and have done so throughout our nation's history. Our legal system, at least in theory, is able to deal with this. There is, within the legal system, a presumption of innocence, including in the period between when a person is arrested and goes to trial. This presumption continues through the guilt phase of a criminal trial, up until the judge instructs the jury, and the jurors determine their verdict.

Those legal protections, defined by the Constitution and constitutional law (cases decided by federal courts) are part of the court process. Likewise, in certain cases, those protections can extend to a person's employment -- often by way of union contracts, which are legal documents -- meaning a person may not be fired for being arrested, absent a conviction. But it does not apply to the "court of public opinion."

A person might believe a person who is arrested is guilty of a crime (in fact, they may be convinced that a person is guilty before an arrest), based upon what they have heard, or read, or been told about the crime. More, if they have first-hand knowledge of the crime (including victims and/or family and friends of the victim), they may believe a person is guilty. There is absolutely nothing "wrong" in making a judgement on a current event of this type, any more than it is wrong for people to try to identify who Jack the Ripper was.

In a court case, prospective jurors are questioned to determine if they have made up their minds, one way or the other. That's a good thing. For everyone is entitled to a fair trial .... and such protections, when provided today to even the most vicious criminals, help to insure the rights of innocent people in the future.

Still, no judge or attorney actually expects that potential jurors will come to the court as an absolutely clean slate. Especially in high profile cases, most potential jurors will have some knowlede of the case. More, as Vincent Bugliosi has pointed out, most potential jurors enter a court room aware that the police and prosecutor believe the defendant is guilty; and, in their life experiences, most people who go on trial in a criminal case have been found guilty. The key to justice is that decent people can set aside impressions, and decide a case entirely upon the evidence presented by the prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Under these conditions, a jury may find a person guilty, or not guilty (or there can be a "hung jury&quot . "Not guilty" does not equal "innocent" .... it means the prosecutor did not present enough evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Reasonable doubt" is a tricky thing. No one has ever provided a perfect definition of what that means. I would suggest that it is rooted in common sense: a reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond any doubt -- although there are convictions that are beyond any doubt -- although some defense attornies with guilty clients may try to instill "any doubt" to try to win their cases, just as some prosecutors will deny the possibility of reasonable doubt.

Our legal system is indeed imperfect. One of my late uncles, a senior investigator, told me about a night when he caught a guy, bloody hammer in hand, with his ex-girlfriend's corpse. In NYS, a person can be arraigned on a felony charge by a Justice of the Peace -- which is a town or village "judge," who is not required to be an attorney. Felony trials can only be heard by a real judge. This night, they had to awaken the local Justice, and bring him to the local court. There, as they were preparing to bring the defendant in, theJustice said to my uncle, "Okay, bring the guilty son-of-a-bitch in, and let's give him a fair hearing."

Still, though imperfect, our system has remarkable potential to reach a just decision.