The presumption of innocence.
It’s a hallowed maxim of American jurisprudence.
I’ve covered crime in Richmond County for five years and for most of that time have always included the following statement: “All defendants facing criminal charges are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.”
(I’ve also taken my fair share of angry and threatening phone calls from defendants and family members for reporting publicly available information.)
However, when it comes to the Court of Public Opinion, many readers of crime news tend to immediately convict the defendant in social media comments and town gossip. Some even call for execution or bodily harm at the mere charge.
It’s something many of us, including myself, are guilty of.
Most crime reporting is much like the convening of a grand jury — only the state’s side is presented.
The defendant’s side is hardly ever presented until trial, if even then, because of the right of non-self-incrimination. Most lawyers will encourage their clients to keep their mouths shut.
This is why we use words like “accused of,” “charged with,” and “allegedly,” and make sure to cite law enforcement and public court documents.
Reporters aren’t saying the defendants did something, just reporting that they have been locked in a cage (in most cases) for something law enforcement believes they did. It’s a way to keep the criminal justice system in check and prevent secret arrests and proceedings.
It will then be up to a judge or jury to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented.
But there also are issues with that.
Although the state has the burden of proof, a trial can be an uphill battle for the defendant.
Even if a defendant isn’t guilty, he or she can be pressured into taking a plea deal and admitting guilt just to make the case go away. There is also the option of an Alford Plea, where the defendant doesn’t admit guilt, but agrees that the state has enough evidence to convict if the case goes to trial.
On the flip side of that legal coin, jurors can acquit a defendant — even though he or she may be guilty — if they disagree with the law the defendant is accused of breaking.
This is called jury nullification.
Its American roots are in combating fugitive slave laws and it’s been used more recently to fight against marijuana prohibition.
While most judges and prosecutors cringe at the thought and mention of nullification, some states like Georgia have the right of the jurors enshrined in their constitutions or law books.
Even a conviction by a jury may not mean the individual actually committed the crime, as exonerations with help from the Innocence Project, Duke Wrongful Convictions Clinic and other similar organizations have shown.
There may also have been certain circumstances in the case that could lend sympathy to the defendant’s case, even if they were technically guilty of breaking the law.
So, please try to remember that just because someone is charged, he or she is not automatically guilty.
Reserve judgement until conviction.
William R. Toler is managing editor of the Richmond Observer.
