greg334
Veteran Expediter
I know, I'm tired and it is the first thing in the morning.
But see with all your wisdom, you are lumping both law enforcement and the judicial system all in one when there is a difference between a court of law and law enforcement. The court is where the charges are filed and adjudicated, where guilt is determined and where a sentence is handed out if need be. Law enforcement is where the foundations of the charges originate from and they have the job to find the facts, set up those facts to support the accuser, be it the state or an individual and in doing so they can assume that one is guilty that leads up to the criminal charge or in order for an individual to bring another to court (civil court). There is a big distinct difference between the two and no where is there an "overlap" that allows a person to be tried outside of court or sentence because of an opinion or an assumption that law enforcement makes. Even the "rights" under the 14th amendment are normally used outside of court during the discovery (law enforcement's job) of any investigation and in some cases the 5th is used in court, but not (rarely) in law enforcement.
I understand what you are saying but it is a simplistic view of things that seems to be wrong. Assuming a guilt does not mean that law enforcement can pursue a sentence or harassment but pursue facts. NG being left out of it (and her followers), law enforcement has a job to do, find the facts, decipher some of them and present them to the appropriate people, in the course of doing so, they have to take a position that a crime has been committed and they have to assume the person they are asking questions to or investigating may be the person who caused the crime. This is not to say they can run up to the person and say "you're guilty, I am locking you up forever", that's the job of the judicial system.
BUT the court didn't Instruct the jury with finding her innocent but to only judge her on the evidence and only the evidence. If she committed the crime but the prosecution failed to prove her guilty, she is not innocent but not guilty of those charges and ONLY those charges.
So close but nope ... although I understand what you are getting at it just isn't the case.
The jury wasn't judging her on any presumption of innocents but on the fact or lack of facts that the persecution presented to uphold their position under those charges AND ONLY those charges. Furthermore her defense team presented their case which injected reasonable doubt into the case so the jurors judged her on the balance of evidence and said the prosecution's evidence didn't support their case or the guilt that they were asked to return.
Again the jury didn't say Not Guilty because she is innocent but they said Not Guilty of the charges.
My statement stands correct.
There are no assumptions of innocents being made in any criminal court proceedings because they can't assume anything until all the evidence is heard from both sides and the jury gets their instructions on how to judge the case (as I say "charged").
From the Florida court manual, instruction for seating the jury;
"It is your solemn responsibility to determine if the State has proved its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt against (defendant). Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence, or lack of evidence, and the law."
AND ...
"It is the judge's responsibility to decide which laws apply to this case and to explain those laws to you. It is your responsibility to decide what the facts of this case may be, and to apply the law to those facts. Thus, the province of the jury and the province of the court are well defined, and they do not overlap. This is one of the fundamental principles of our system of justice. "
AND further on ...
"You should not form any definite or fixed opinion on the merits of the case until you have heard all the evidence, the argument of the lawyers and the instructions on the law by the judge. Until that time, you should not discuss the case among yourselves."
Where does it say presumed innocent?
The judge in Florida as in Kentucky as in Michigan all have pretty much the same instructions - there is no assumptions to be made, the jury is to judge the evidence in the case based on the law and only that.
Here is the instructions for First Degree murder;
"To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- (Victim) is dead.
- The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).
- There was a premeditated killing of (victim)."
"The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing."
If there is an assumption, then it is a bad thing for most who are sitting there being judged. I surely don't want a jury to do anything other than determine the guilt or have to face reasonable doubt in any case and return a not guilty verdict, which seems to make the system work.
