The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law -- U.S. Supreme Court, Coffin v. United States [1895].
Was [there] enough evidence to find that they were not guilty? -- ABC News, Matter of Martin Lee Anderson [2007].
Forget that musty old 19th-century Supreme Court stuff. According to ABC, there's a new legal standard in criminal cases; at least those in which the MSM is rooting for a conviction. Henceforth, the presumption of innocence is abolished. There shall be a presumption of guilt, and the burden will be on the accused to produce enough evidence to acquit himself.
View video here.
ABC's Kate Snow issued the new ruling in the course of interviewing the attorney and parents of Martin Lee Anderson, the 14-year old African-American boy whose death led to the indictment of employees of the Florida boot camp where he had been held. All the defendants were acquitted yesterday, but that wasn't good enough for Snow.
KATE SNOW: Gina [Jones, Martin Lee Anderson's mother], this was an all-white jury. Do you think if the make-up of the jury had been different, that you would be talking about a different verdict this morning?
GINA JONES: Maybe, yes.
SNOW: Maybe, but you're not sure.
JONES: Yes.
SNOW: Do you think there was enough evidence to find that they were not guilty?
JONES: No.
While the Ivy-educated Snow apparently doesn't grasp the rudiments of our justice system, the boy's father did. His response clearly reflected his recognition that the burden of proof lay on the prosecution.
ROBERT ANDERSON: There was enough evidence [to convict]. It was right there in black and white. I mean, what else did you need, a rocket scientist to figure it out? All the evidence in the world, and they still came back with this not-guilty crap.
