A central tenet of the U.S. criminal justice system is presumption of innocence, a safeguard of the rights of American citizens since the nation's founding. In today's media saturated world, however, where information zips from terminal to terminal in seconds and people believe they know the truth because they have read something online or seen something on TV, it's important to remind ourselves of the importance of the presumption of innocence, which places the burden on state prosecutors to prove guilt, not on the accused to demonstrate innocence.
Considering someone innocent until proven guilty is actually not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, it is implied in various amendments such as the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches by the government, the Fifth Amendment guarantee that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself, and the Sixth Amendment rights of the accused to confront witnesses against him and to have the assistance of legal counsel. Through court decisions and federal and state laws, presumption of innocence has been infused throughout our criminal justice system.
Of course, this presumption applies only to the government, in the persons of law enforcement and the judiciary. It does not apply to the news media and private citizens. When confronted with a crime, they are free, because of the First Amendment, to make any suppositions they desire about who did what to whom and why.
The problem is that often this speculation is based on incomplete and incorrect evidence. Law enforcement, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are sometimes precluded by court order from disclosing details of a live case, but usually they refuse to divulge information for the simple, essential purposes of protecting the privacy of people involved as well as preserving the integrity of the legal system as a whole. The fact is that when a criminal complaint is filed, it is often based on untested information: a witness who hasn't been subjected to cross-examination, a portion of an audiotape or videotape that hasn't been reviewed in total, an investigation that is incomplete.
This then is the danger of jumping to conclusions in today's world of instant communication via email, blog, text, and video. Television and the Internet are wonderful because they bring so much data to us nearly instantaneously. But they're also dangerous because it's difficult to distinguish between valid and false, or even just incomplete, information. Some of these news reports or blogs amount to no more than unfounded gossip that impugns character and destroys reputations.
All of us have been victims of unjust speculation and rumor. From the perspective of the defense lawyer, that's why it's so important to step back and get the full picture of what's going on. The next time you see a story about a criminal suspect on the evening news or on the web, ask yourself some basic questions: Are the sources credible? Do they have an agenda they're trying to push? Is the story complete or are parts missing? How would I want to be treated if I were the subject of that story? Should I challenge the writer or speaker to prove her accusations? Asking these questions keeps everyone honest, promotes civility, and aids the quest for justice.
In an upcoming post, we'll discuss the concept of reasonable doubt, which is so closely intertwined with the presumption of innocence.
