Options
Bonds, Vick & Donaghy ... Are They Really Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
JackWESQ
Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭
These days, there are no shortages of columns and articles about Barry Bonds (steroids), Michael Vick (dog fighting) and Tim Donaghy (gambling). As such, I read/hear the words "innocent until proven" ad nauseam. To those, I offer the following column by Sherry F. Colb, Professor of Law at Rutgers University. You can read the column if you like, but here's a quick summary. People always leave out thw word "PRESUMED" innocent until proven guilty. This doesn't mean the person is IN FACT innocent. You can look at it as a, sort of, who goes first ... the prosecution. Since the defendant is already presumed innocent, it is the prosecution's job to overcome the presumption. Then, assuming the presumption applies, it applies only if you happen to be a member of a criminal jury. So what does this mean? It means that since there is no jury, yet, in the criminal trials or Bonds, Vick & Donaghy, ANYONE (including MLB, NFL, NBA, Falcons, Giants) can believe that Bonds, Vick & Donaghy are guilty as sin and take action as they deem appropriate.
The Presumption of Innocence
ALLEN IVERSON AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
By SHERRY F. COLB
----
Monday, Jun. 17, 2002
On Thursday, July 11th, Allen Iverson--the Philadelphia 76ers' All-Star Guard and NBA most valuable player for the 2000-01 season--was charged with three felonies and assorted misdemeanors. Prosecutors say he threw his wife of eleven months, Tawana Iverson, out of their house, naked, and subsequently threatened several men with a gun in his efforts to locate her. One of the men gave an account of what happened in a 911 call in which he suggested that this was the third time Iverson had thrown his wife out of their home.
In response to the charges, Larry Brown and Billy King, the Sixers' coach and general manager, say they firmly support Iverson, reportedly emphasizing that he should be "presumed innocent" unless he is proven guilty.
Such statements, though quite common, misconstrue the role of the presumption of innocence in a criminal case and feed the mistaken belief--shared by many--that the Constitution requires everyone in the United States to presume that an accused criminal is actually innocent until a jury finds otherwise.
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty": Literal Truth?
Recall another celebrity athlete who stood accused of spousal violence. During the year-long circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial, I encountered two odd claims by non-lawyers (and some misguided attorneys) with whom I was acquainted.
The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and would continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury brought in a guilty verdict against him. For all but those who take the radical (one might even say preposterous) view that the truth of an event from the past magically changes when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal description of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a jury says later can factually alter that historical truth.
No Command for Non-jurors to Suspend Judgment
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in law or logic.
An audience watching a television show like The Practice or Law and Order must await the end of the program to find out what "really" happened. That is because the shows are fictional, and what most viewers want to know is whether--in the script--the accused is guilty or not. Because the truth lives only in the imagination of the show's creators, it is appropriate for the audience to delay all conclusions until the end, relegating suspicions and beliefs to the status of guesswork until the dramatic, and often unexpected, denouement.
The Presumption of Innocence in a Criminal Trial
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a crime.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest of us--the people of the United States who are not serving on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to think or say.
In the case of Allen Iverson, for example, the man who called 911 to report being threatened at gunpoint is under no obligation to presume Iverson's innocence. Indeed, if he takes the witness stand at trial and falsely recants his story as a favor to a friend (or as a loyal basketball fan), he will be guilty of perjury.
How to Interpret Inconsistent Verdicts
When O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder and subsequently held liable for wrongful death in a civil trial, some people wondered what they were supposed to think. For those who would treat the jury as a font of truth, it was possible to reconcile the verdicts--the evidence might have proved that Simpson probably killed Brown and Goldman, but it was not quite strong enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Significantly, however, we need not view the verdicts in that deferential, crabbed way.
It is possible and even reasonable to reach other conclusions. One might conclude either that (a) the criminal jury erred in reaching its verdict; (b) the criminal jury disregarded the judge's instructions to find the defendant guilty if the evidence supported that verdict beyond a reasonable doubt; or (c) the criminal jury correctly reacted to the evidence admitted at trial, but other evidence that failed to make its way in--including, but not limited to, Simpson's flight from the police, threats of suicide, claims that he loved Nicole "too much," and the prophetic entries in Nicole's own diary--fill the gap between what the jury heard and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Notably, in the civil trial, Simpson was forced to testify and had no recourse to the Fifth Amendment, as he had in his criminal trial. That too could account for the divergence in verdicts. So could the fact that a photo of Simpson in the Bruno Magli shoes he had denied wearing was available at the civil, but not yet at the criminal, trial.
The Right to Think and Speak Logically, Outside the Jury Room
However one views the Simpson and Iverson cases, the Constitution does not dictate what we ought to think or say. Indeed, it protects those thoughts and statements, regardless of their content or viewpoint, under the First Amendment. We therefore need not limit ourselves in the ways the jury is limited--in terms of either the evidence we are allowed to consider, the threshold that evidence must meet before we draw a conclusion, or even our own default presumption.
You can presume that Allan Iverson is guilty as charged, in other words, subject to rebuttal by proof that emerges in the next several months. You can do that, based on logic and the evidence you already know about, along with the fact that thankfully, a relatively small proportion of people charged with crimes are factually innocent.
What you cannot do, consistent with the Constitution, is bring your logical presumption of guilt, your willingness to infer guilt on the basis of inadmissible evidence (such as Iverson's prior bad acts), or your readiness to "convict without a trial" into a jury room. In that room, where twelve people hold the power to deprive a person of her fundamental freedom from physical confinement, the law and the judge's instructions rightly govern our thought processes.
The Presumption of Innocence
ALLEN IVERSON AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
By SHERRY F. COLB
----
Monday, Jun. 17, 2002
On Thursday, July 11th, Allen Iverson--the Philadelphia 76ers' All-Star Guard and NBA most valuable player for the 2000-01 season--was charged with three felonies and assorted misdemeanors. Prosecutors say he threw his wife of eleven months, Tawana Iverson, out of their house, naked, and subsequently threatened several men with a gun in his efforts to locate her. One of the men gave an account of what happened in a 911 call in which he suggested that this was the third time Iverson had thrown his wife out of their home.
In response to the charges, Larry Brown and Billy King, the Sixers' coach and general manager, say they firmly support Iverson, reportedly emphasizing that he should be "presumed innocent" unless he is proven guilty.
Such statements, though quite common, misconstrue the role of the presumption of innocence in a criminal case and feed the mistaken belief--shared by many--that the Constitution requires everyone in the United States to presume that an accused criminal is actually innocent until a jury finds otherwise.
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty": Literal Truth?
Recall another celebrity athlete who stood accused of spousal violence. During the year-long circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial, I encountered two odd claims by non-lawyers (and some misguided attorneys) with whom I was acquainted.
The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and would continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury brought in a guilty verdict against him. For all but those who take the radical (one might even say preposterous) view that the truth of an event from the past magically changes when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal description of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a jury says later can factually alter that historical truth.
No Command for Non-jurors to Suspend Judgment
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in law or logic.
An audience watching a television show like The Practice or Law and Order must await the end of the program to find out what "really" happened. That is because the shows are fictional, and what most viewers want to know is whether--in the script--the accused is guilty or not. Because the truth lives only in the imagination of the show's creators, it is appropriate for the audience to delay all conclusions until the end, relegating suspicions and beliefs to the status of guesswork until the dramatic, and often unexpected, denouement.
The Presumption of Innocence in a Criminal Trial
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a crime.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest of us--the people of the United States who are not serving on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to think or say.
In the case of Allen Iverson, for example, the man who called 911 to report being threatened at gunpoint is under no obligation to presume Iverson's innocence. Indeed, if he takes the witness stand at trial and falsely recants his story as a favor to a friend (or as a loyal basketball fan), he will be guilty of perjury.
How to Interpret Inconsistent Verdicts
When O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder and subsequently held liable for wrongful death in a civil trial, some people wondered what they were supposed to think. For those who would treat the jury as a font of truth, it was possible to reconcile the verdicts--the evidence might have proved that Simpson probably killed Brown and Goldman, but it was not quite strong enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Significantly, however, we need not view the verdicts in that deferential, crabbed way.
It is possible and even reasonable to reach other conclusions. One might conclude either that (a) the criminal jury erred in reaching its verdict; (b) the criminal jury disregarded the judge's instructions to find the defendant guilty if the evidence supported that verdict beyond a reasonable doubt; or (c) the criminal jury correctly reacted to the evidence admitted at trial, but other evidence that failed to make its way in--including, but not limited to, Simpson's flight from the police, threats of suicide, claims that he loved Nicole "too much," and the prophetic entries in Nicole's own diary--fill the gap between what the jury heard and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Notably, in the civil trial, Simpson was forced to testify and had no recourse to the Fifth Amendment, as he had in his criminal trial. That too could account for the divergence in verdicts. So could the fact that a photo of Simpson in the Bruno Magli shoes he had denied wearing was available at the civil, but not yet at the criminal, trial.
The Right to Think and Speak Logically, Outside the Jury Room
However one views the Simpson and Iverson cases, the Constitution does not dictate what we ought to think or say. Indeed, it protects those thoughts and statements, regardless of their content or viewpoint, under the First Amendment. We therefore need not limit ourselves in the ways the jury is limited--in terms of either the evidence we are allowed to consider, the threshold that evidence must meet before we draw a conclusion, or even our own default presumption.
You can presume that Allan Iverson is guilty as charged, in other words, subject to rebuttal by proof that emerges in the next several months. You can do that, based on logic and the evidence you already know about, along with the fact that thankfully, a relatively small proportion of people charged with crimes are factually innocent.
What you cannot do, consistent with the Constitution, is bring your logical presumption of guilt, your willingness to infer guilt on the basis of inadmissible evidence (such as Iverson's prior bad acts), or your readiness to "convict without a trial" into a jury room. In that room, where twelve people hold the power to deprive a person of her fundamental freedom from physical confinement, the law and the judge's instructions rightly govern our thought processes.
0
Comments
I have not been one to believe that the legal system is infallible. Great wealth or poverty tilts verdicts all too easily. Whether OJ or WorldCom in the courtroom - or Pete Rose or Bonds in the court of Public Opinion, guilt or innocence was likely determined in private (or at least in the absence of living witnesses in OJ's case). No jury or pundit can change what is real.
Because a case may or may not meet the standard of proof, or because different groups have different standards (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. 51% vs. whiff test), the average person need not burden themself with the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Rather, it provides an acceptable way for man to support the unsupportable. Or a reasonable way to deny the obvious - or at least delay it. Conversely, everybody has the right to an opinion - and opinions are often strengthened by police action, prosecutor action, or eyewitness testimony.
Right or wrong, if I want to believe that somebody took steroids, killed dogs, killed Nicole, bet on baseball, bought jurors, or whatever - that is my choice. Unless I am on a jury for an accused - then, and only then, is innocent until proven guilty in play.
I had never thought of it that way. Thanks.
Bosox1976
Thanks again.
Think about it, all the way back to OJ Simpson's case...the public immediately comes down with 'guilty' on their mind. Some were guilty, some were let off...but why do athletes immediately get the court of public opinion swung so rapidly against them?
Might it be envy? Jealousy of their fame, money, and abilities?
Might it be envy? Jealousy of their fame, money, and abilities?
Well, to address the two examples you mentioned (O.J. and Vick), I think it's more like guilt, actually.
Edit: O.J. was acquitted for one reason and one reason only: the total ineptitude of the LAPD and its prosecution efforts (or lack thereof).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>but why do athletes immediately get the court of public opinion swung so rapidly against them? >>
It's because we expect more from them. They make millions for playing a stinking game, they have life by the gonads, they have reached the position we all envy - and we expect them to make the most of it. We don't expect them to become criminals. I think 2 things are at play here though. 1.) Some criminal types become sports stars. and 2.) Too much wealth is not good for a person.
Some of these people becomes our "heros". We want to be like them not because of the kind of person they are, but because they made it big with sheer talent and not much effort. We just want to believe that such things happen to "good" people.
Good point. The truth is that many of these players exhibit criminal behavior and/or tendencies prior to even becoming stars. No amount of wealth and fame can turn a dirtbag into a decent person. In fact, it usually works the other way in many cases.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Some sports stars become criminals, i.e. sports doesn't build character, it exposes it. Some criminal types become pretty much anything including teachers, priests, doctors etc. So, it makes sense that athletes are not immune to this fact of life.
I would say you're off base on #2. There are plenty of wealthy people who are nice people, philanthropists and pretty much normal everyday people. However, if you have questionable character in the first place, having tons of money allows you to reach a whole new level of mischief.
Seeking primarily PSA graded pre-war "type" cards
My PSA Registry Sets
34 Goudey, 75 Topps Mini, Hall of Fame Complete Set, 1985 Topps Tiffany, Hall of Fame Players Complete Set
<< <i>and take action as they deem appropriate. >>
It's their world and their rules.
Go find another job that pays millions just to play a game.
<< <i>Michael Jackson will always be rememberd as the "Guy who likes little boys," but again, found not guilty in a court of law. >>
Because he bought the kids and parents off.
Link
AGREED! I believe he did too! But I guess my point was he was found not guilty in EITHER case. I don't know exactly what went on in the first case, but I believe that something did happen there. However, if the case would have been strong (which apparently it was not), then I'm sure the D.A. would have proceeded with charges with or without the parents/kids help. The D.A. didn't need their testimony. There is still DNA evidence, eye witnesses and etc that can be used without ever calling the child to testify. Again, all these guys were INDICTED, not CONVICTED.
Big difference.
<< <i>"Because he bought the kids and parents off."
AGREED! I believe he did too! But I guess my point was still he was not found guilty in EITHER case. Remember, all these guys were INDICTED, not CONVICTED. >>
But the point of the article was that it doesn't mean he was innocent.
Vick the Dick: Yes, he has the right to presumption of innocence and his day in court. THEN he will be found guilty and be in jail where he belongs. There is just too much evidence that says he did do the deed (even if it was merely allowing the dogfights to continue under his watch and he personally did not participate in them).
Bonds: It's way too early to tell. I'm waiting to see what becomes of that whole grand jury testomony.
McGwire: This guy, IMO, is innocent. The only reason he basically took the Fifth, IMO, is that he did not want to be in a position to rat out teammates he witnessed taking 'roids and possibly other questionable (or even illegal) activites. Remember, baseball teams have that whole Code of the Clubhouse where what goes on in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse? There is simply NO credible evidence that says McGwire took 'roids. NONE.
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
I wonder what the mentality of someone who assumes someone else is guilty simply because they are famous - without knowing the intimate details of the case, without knowing any facts of the case. Would be an interesting study, for sure, to study what causes people to immediately assume a celebrity is guilty of whatever crime they are charged with.
<< <i>What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a crime.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest of us--the people of the United States who are not serving on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to think or say. >>
and though I am a fan of the Giants, Bonds and his ability to hit home runs, I am perfectly free to believe and shout at the top of my lungs that Bonds is guilty as sin.
/s/ JackWESQ
somebody that thinks like me,dig it!