[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

As a criminal defense lawyer I can tell you that anyone who truly believes in such things as the presumption of innocence and the burden on the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt is trapsing down the path of unreality. When I win a criminal case it is because we have succeeded in proving the defendant's innocence (or rather lack of guilt). There is a great law review article I recently read which stated that in this post 9-11 era, jurors no longer presume the innocence of the accused and the burden has subtly and quietly shifted to the defendant being forced to prove his/her case not the State convincing jurors with such certainty that they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. In criminal cases, the standard of proof for conviction has seemingly become more of a preponderance of the evidence than beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter how the jury is contrastingly instructed and despite their promises to require the State to prove its case as required by law. Credit the 9-11 aftermath, the OJ case, and the media's unfettered onslaught and irresponsibility in convicting defendants without the necessity of their day in court with much of the problem.
This doesn't have a lot to do with cards, but is in response to a post in this thread.