Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The use of the term-of-art "presumption of innocence" really has to do with putting the burden of proof in a criminal case on the state, and nothing at all to do with the ultimate guilt or innocence, legal or otherwise, of the accused. In fact, this idea works *in favor* of the accused because if it were a true "presumption" the accused would have to come forward with proof of his innocence once evidence of guilt were introduced in order to avoid a directed verdict of guilty. As it is, the accused does not have to provide proof of his innocence. - --Frank > At 09:51 AM 9/7/1999 -0700, Roger Beamon wrote: > >Isn't this in conflict with the lay person's > concept of a cornerstone > >of our system in the US, i.e. the presumption of > innocence until > >proven guilty? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com