Pet Peeve: Innocent until Proven Guilty

[Aisling]

Personally, I like to hear both sides, BEFORE I make up my mind.

Me, too, but sometimes my mind has a mind of it's own.

 

[WDWBlue]

We won't.

It is entirely a circumstantial case. They only need to prove she was the only one who could have done it. Not the meter reader. Not to tooth fairy. Not George.

As it stands--it seems that most experts agree that while they don't have to "prove" anything on the defense--they made a horrific accusation and have no evidence to back it up. While they don't have to prove it--from the start it severely weakens their case if they don't. Thus far...George is "innocent until proven guilty".

If you're right, then the only possible verdict is not guilty.

Regardless of whether the evidence is circumstantial or direct (some or all of it), the case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Me, too, but sometimes my mind has a mind of it's own.

Things aren't always, what they appear to be..

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If you're right, then the only possible verdict is not guilty.

Regardless of whether the evidence is circumstantial or direct (some or all of it), the case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court of law states otherwise.

Most popular example: Scott Peterson convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Not a single piece of direct evidence.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138362,00.html


Cases can still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if there is enough circumstantial evidence that together show that the defendant was the only one who could have possibly done it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is more information how that is possible and how a Supreme Court ruling allows it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

http://legal-dictionary.thefreediction

ary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence
Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

So your statement that the only possible verdict is "not guilty" is incorrect. Even if she is found "not guilty"--it isn't necessarily because the evidence is only circumstantial.


Also of important note in that case--some try to say it was some kind of accident, which may have been the case. Many opinions on what type of accident it may have been have been stated.

In the state of Florida--if the "accidental death" was caused by "abuse of the child"--for example, the idea that she was given chloroform (not proven with direct evidence), then that can lead to a Felony murder conviction. Someone posted the actual law on the CA thread. Too tired to search it out right now.

Lastly--the state doesn't have to show pre-meditation either. Some form the opinion that she can't be convicted because the state cannot prove any premeditation. It isn't required though it certainly helps if they can show it.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Things aren't always, what they appear to be..

That is precisely what Casey's family and friends have learned over this 3 year period. She wasn't what she appeared to be.

 

[Becky2005]

Things aren't always, what they appear to be..

I'm not following the Casey Anthony case so can't speak to that but I'm thinking wasn't it proven not too long ago by DNA methods that all family members of the JonBenet case were cleared yet it seemed everyone made the parents completely guilty.

I don't know I know too many real life "truth is stranger than fiction" things for me to not always think "things may not be as they first appear".

 

[WDWBlue]

The court of law states otherwise.

Most popular example: Scott Peterson convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. Not a single piece of direct evidence.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138362,00.html


Cases can still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if there is enough circumstantial evidence that together show that the defendant was the only one who could have possibly done it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is more information how that is possible and how a Supreme Court ruling allows it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

http://legal-dictionary.thefreediction

You've completely misread what I wrote. I never said there had to be any direct evidence.

Whatever evidence is provided, it must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.


So your statement that the only possible verdict is "not guilty" is incorrect. Even if she is found "not guilty"--it isn't necessarily because the evidence is only circumstantial.


Also of important note in that case--some try to say it was some kind of accident, which may have been the case. Many opinions on what type of accident it may have been have been stated.

In the state of Florida--if the "accidental death" was caused by "abuse of the child"--for example, the idea that she was given chloroform (not proven with direct evidence), then that can lead to a Felony murder conviction. Someone posted the actual law on the CA thread. Too tired to search it out right now.

Lastly--the state doesn't have to show pre-meditation either. Some form the opinion that she can't be convicted because the state cannot prove any premeditation. It isn't required though it certainly helps if they can show it.

You've completely misread what I wrote. I never said there had to be any direct evidence.

Whatever evidence there is, has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

One cannot be CONVICTED in this country till they are proven guilty, but that doesn't mean I can't say they are guilty to my wife or on this board.

One of my Facebook friends just updated her status to something like "Everyone is saying Casey Anthony is guilty, but we really can't say that until she is proven so". So I wrote, "um, no, we can say she is guilty till we are blue in the face, if we feel she is. No matter how often we say it though, she can't be convicted until the jury says she is. That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means."

Convicted is the key word. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean that a person is literally innocent until a guilty verdict is read. Good comeback on your friend's post.

I feel like this when people always throw around "don't judge other people" like you are not allowed to even have an opinion about someone's character, lifestyle, choice of clothing, parenting style, etc. If no one ever judged any behavior then that would indicate that every behavior, no matter how destructive or aberrant, would be acceptable.

Exactly, can't agree enough.

 

[Acklander]

We won't.

It is entirely a circumstantial case. They only need to prove she was the only one who could have done it. Not the meter reader. Not to tooth fairy. Not George.

As it stands--it seems that most experts agree that while they don't have to "prove" anything on the defense--they made a horrific accusation and have no evidence to back it up. While they don't have to prove it--from the start it severely weakens their case if they don't. Thus far...George is "innocent until proven guilty".

if the case is entirely circumstantial, I'd have a tough time coming up with a guilty verdict in a death penalty case.

 

[daughtersrus]

I live in the same neighborhood as Drew Peterson so as his case gets closer to trial, I'm sure that we'll be hearing a lot more of it.

Personally, I am 99.9999% sure that he's guilty (or he's the most unlucky man alive) but I'm not sure that they will have enough proof to put him away. Especially if the hearsay law gets thrown out.

 

[Big Cuddly Bear]

C'mon... who didn't think OJ was guilty?

I mean he was, but they couldn't prove it....

BTW, has he found the killer yet?