Post by BudPost by John CorbettPost by BudPost by John CorbettBased on your earlier statements in other threads, it doesn't seem you had
the same reaction that most people had. On the other hand, a few lines
below this you stated, "I know that experts on law and crime have already
looked into the matter and decided the person is guilty.". Do you apply
that thinking to Chauvin?
No, because I understand the political considerations outweigh the legal
ones in cases like this.
Since prosecutors represent an elected office, it would be naive to think
politics don't enter into their decisions.
There isn`t the same tremendous pressure in the vast majority of
criminal cases as there is in these high profile, racially charged cases.
That is why I recognize this as a different animal.
Post by John CorbettThat is one more good reason
why our justice system raises the bar for getting a criminal
conviction.
I have no problem where the bar for conviction is. I was talking about
the starting point, the presumption of innocence. It is an absurd
assumption.
There is nothing absurd about it. It simply requires the prosecutors to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. If they fail
to do that, the jury is supposed to acquit the accused even if they have
doubts about his innocence. It means that in cases of doubt, the jury
rules the accused is not guilty. They aren't necessarily saying he is
innocent. They are saying the prosecution failed to prove its case and
therefore it is presumed the accused is innocent.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettYour attitude reveals a clear bias based on whom the defendants are.
Not who the defendants are, what the situation is. Clearly the rules
change in these high profile, racially charged cases.
Post by John CorbettYou're willing to give cops the presumption of innocence
I looked at the tape and I read the autopsy report. I looked at the
arrest procedures in place at the time of Floyd`s arrest. It isn`t
presumption when you look at information, it is concluding.
None of us has enough information to decide whether Chauvin is guilty or
innocent because the evidence against him is just now being presented. It
seems to me the key questions are whether Chauvin's actions contributed to
Floyd's demise and whether Chauvin's actions were justified under the
circumstances. I don't know what the Minnesota law says in the case where
the accused contributed to a person's death even if he wasn't the primary
cause of it. No doubt that will be explained in the judge's instructions
to the jury. Until these issues are resolved, I am perfectly fine with
giving Chauvin the same presumptions of innocence I would give to a gang
banger accused of murder. In both cases the prosecution bears the burden
of proving that the accused is guilty.
Post by BudPost by John Corbettbut for others
you give credence to the fact that cops and prosecutors have decided the
accused is guilty.
The lynch mobs have decided Chauvin is guilty. The system is all too
willing to appease the violent mobs.
The jury is the safeguard against mob rule. It proved to be in the George
Zimmerman trial. It has been my experience in the four jury panels I
served on that the jurors take their job very seriously and do their best
to find what they believe is a just verdict. I believe that even about the
10 people whom I disagreed with in the murder trial I served on.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettPost by BudLike in the Trayvon Martin case...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
"The State Attorney's office initially determined there was insufficient
evidence to charge Zimmerman and did not file charges based on the capias
request."
"On March 16, Serino [the investigating detective] told the Orlando
Sentinel that his investigation had turned up no reliable evidence that
cast doubt on Zimmerman's account; that he had acted in self-defense. "The
best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says
the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event, everything I
have is adding up to what he says."
It wasn`t evidence that changed things, it was intense political
pressure. Jesse Jackson was saying...
"Jackson predicted that the protests will continue to multiply in number
and that the ranks of protestors will swell until Zimmerman is arrested.
“As long as he is outside of the court system, the protests will
intensify and spill over into other dimensions,” Jackson said.
“His lack of appearance in the court system is a source of
embarrassment and humiliation. He needs to face the court.”
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2012-mar-23-la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-case-jesse-jackson-20120323-story.html
Also the Arbery case should have never seen the inside of a courtroom,
the initial prosecutor saw no grounds for charges. Political pressure
changed that.
And even in the Chauvin case the political pressure is evident. Why were
all the cops charged with crimes, even the one who merely was holding back
the crowd?
We will find out at their trials what evidence the prosecutors have that
the other cops were complicit.
Or you can look at the tape and use the brain you were born with. A cop
doing crowd control, *with his back to the arrest* was charged. This
doesn`t scream political pressure?
The tape doesn't tell us everything. It shows us somethings.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettUntil then all of them should be afforded
the presumption of innocence.
With the possible exception of Chauvin none of them should have even
been charged. The only reason they were is because cities were burning.
I am fine with giving all of these cop the presumptions of innocence. We
shall see if the prosecutors have compelling evidence of their guilt.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettPost by BudThese are all the product of political considerations, not legal ones.
If Zimmerman stops a white guy and the guy attacks him and Zimmerman
shoots him, does this go to court? Not a chance. Blacks have a gut feeling
that these things play out like they do because of race, and the system is
bending over backwards to appease them.
That might very well be true.
In which case this is injustice. Lady justice is wearing a blindfold for
a reason. We abandon principles for the sake of political expediency.
It would have been had George Zimmerman been found guilty. Fortunately, we
have a criminal justice system that presumed he was innocent and 12 jurors
after hearing the case against him ruled that the prosecutors failed to
prove that George Zimmerman was not justified in taking Treyvon Martin's
life.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettIn other times and places the political
pressure has been to crack down on crime which has on occasions resulted
in innocent people being prosecuted, many of them minorities.
Which has nothing to do with anything. Two wrongs aren`t going to make a
right. Doing things to assuage the feelings of a violent mob isn`t going
to accomplish anything.
Our criminal justice system is designed to be a check on prosecutorial
misconduct no matter what form it takes. Presumption of innocence is a key
component of that. The burden is on the state to prove the accused is
guilty and that is true whether the accused is a cop or a gang banger. All
should be treated equally under the law.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettWe have many
documented cases in which overzealous prosecutors withheld exculpatory
evidence in order to get a conviction.
And the reason they are documented is because they were exposed.
In the Trayvon Martin case the prosecution did not give the defense the
things on his phone, which the defense could have used to contest the
"good boy" persona being advanced. The problem is that all the powers the
be (media/politicians/bureaucrats) decide on the official narrative, and
anything that goes against the "lie agreed upon" is squashed. There were
things on Trayvon Martin`s phone that weren`t allowed to be heard in court
that did have a bearing on his character and conduct.
Judges make decisions all the time on what is admissible based on their
interpretation of the law. They do not base those decisions on what the
MSM is reporting. If judges err in making those judgements, that is
grounds for an appeal in the event of a conviction.
Post by Bud"Kruidbos was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6
that he believed prosecutors had failed to turn over to the defense, as
required by evidence-sharing laws, potentially embarrassing evidence
extracted from Martin’s cell phone."
"Kruidbos testified last month in a pre-trial hearing that he found
photos on Martin’s phone that included pictures of a pile of
jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants, and a hand
holding a semi-automatic pistol."
That Trayvon was a thug did have a bearing on the case.
This is why we have laws and legal precedence to decide what is and what
is not admissible. If prosecutors withhold evidence from the defense, that
too can be grounds for an appeal.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettThis is why we have a presumption
of innocence whether the accused is a cop, George Zimmerman, or some black
guy accused of a drive by shooting.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettPost by BudPost by John CorbettPost by BudPost by John CorbettI do
remember when I was being seated on one particular jury panel, the defense
lawyer asked one potential juror as to whether he believed his client was
guilty or not. His response was, "I don't know" indicating he wanted to
see the evidence which was not the answer the lawyer was looking for. He
wanted to see hear him say, "I presume he is innocent.".
I have that same problem. I know the process, so I can`t assume
innocence. I know that experts on law and crime have already looked into
the matter and decided the person is guilty.
The great thing about our country is the people in charge don't get to
decide you are guilty. They have to prove it to a jury of your peers.
Totalitarian governments decide if people are guilty.
But as I said, I know that people who know the law and are familiar with
crime (both the initial police and the prosecutors/DA) have looked at the
evidence and deemed the person to be guilty of the crime. To presume the
person is innocent is also to presume these experts are wrong. A
presumption of innocence makes that assumption.
No, that is not true. By presuming an accused person is innocent, you are
saying to the people that have decided he is guilty that they are going to
have to prove that to you beyond a reasonable doubt.
They would still have to do that even if I don`t presume innocence.
You have already state that you give weight to the fact that the people
who have investigated a crime believe the accused is guilty. You have a
selective bias in favor of the prosecutors unless the accused is a cop.
Post by BudFacts are pesky things, and the fact is that most of the people who go
to trial are guilty of the crimes they are being charged with. Knowing
that, an assumption of innocence is absurd.
There is nothing absurd about it. It is one of the safeguards we as a
society have against an oppressive government. Countries which don't have
our safeguards make it easy for those in power to jail their opponents.
I see no correlation between the absence of an assumption of innocence
and conviction of guilt. One is a starting point and the other is a
destination.
Your attitude gives the prosecution a head start they are not entitled to.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettPost by BudPost by John CorbettIf they fail to do
that, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty or
not, juries are supposed to acquit the accused. There is a very real
possibility a jury could conclude it is probable the accused is guilty but
if they have a reasonable doubt, they must acquit a person they think is
guilty.
All that is possible without the presumption of innocence. A blank slate
where neither guilt or innocence is presumed works just as well.
You don't have a blank slate.
You do if you don`t assume guilt or innocence.
Post by John CorbettYou start with the inclination that the
accused is guilty unless the accused is a cop.
I assume political considerations are outweighing legal ones when I see
that political considerations outweighing legal ones.
When I served on a jury in two criminal trials, I began with the
presumption of innocence for both, one an accused murderer and one an
accused forger. The prosecution only partially proved its case against the
accused murderer. It failed to prove to my satisfaction that the element
of premeditation so I presumed there was no premeditation and refused to
vote for conviction to the most serious charge. In the case of the forger,
there was no doubt in anybody's mind he had passed some bad checks. The
physical evidence alone was enough to convince us. He had even given the
cops a confession which his lawyer recanted at the trial. We didn't even
need to consider the confession. We found him guilty based solely on the
physical evidence. We convicted him in less than an hour.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettPost by BudPost by John CorbettPost by BudPost by John CorbettPost by BudThe best I can say is you
will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person
committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no.
You would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case unless you
perjured yourself during voir dire. It's a pretty standard question a jury
panel is asked. The defense wants 12 people willing to presume the accused
is innocent.
The defense would do fine with me. The prosecutors would still need to
show me that I was looking at a guilty person.
If you aren't presuming innocence, you make the prosecutor's job much
easier.
No, because a juror isn`t tasked with determining innocence.
A juror is tasked with requiring the prosecutors to present compelling
evidence that the accused is guilty.
They would need to do this with me even if I didn`t presume innocence.
It doesn't sound like you would need much convincing for most people
accused of crimes. You seem very willing to defer to the judgement of the
cops and prosecutors.
Post by BudPost by John CorbettYou seem to find it compelling that
the prosecutors have made the judgement that the accused is guilty.
Not compelling. A weatherman predicts the weather, using his expertise.
They are sometimes wrong, but the predictions are the product of a
process, they are noteworthy and significant. You shouldn`t assume it
isn`t going to rain just because a weatherperson says that it will, and
you shouldn`t assume a person is innocent despite a prosecutor telling you
he is guilty.
If I am a juror, I am supposed to presume innocence. The burden is on the
prosecutor to change my mind.