At the appointed time and place, I sat in a room with a couple hundred others as we watched a presentation on the importance of our jury system and the solemn duty we all were expected to execute in order that justice prevail. Then, we were split off into smaller groups and assigned to various courtrooms for the actual selection process for the trials upcoming that week. Mine was the last name called and approved in my particular group (honestly, I would have been a little disappointed had I not been chosen. Go ahead, call me weird...).
The trial was a criminal case in which the defendant was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault of a child under the age of 13. An ugly case, to put it as mildly as possible. The little that was revealed about the case as the selection process went on was terribly disturbing, as any case involving the abuse of children, especially, would naturally be. Many potential jurors said - to their credit - they could not be objective in the face of such allegations, and were excused. The rest of us were directed to re-convene the next day for the beginning of the trial. Ultimately, the trial was postponed due to what the judge simply described as a "legal issue", and we were excused just as it got underway. But that's not the point of my post. This is:
As the jury selection wrapped up, attorneys for the state and for the defendant addressed us with some preliminary remarks. I was impressed with the professionalism and dedication to their work both sides demonstrated and the decorum they maintained throughout. I may have to temper my lawyer jokes henceforth... Anyway, when the defense attorney addressed us, he gave us a really important refresher on how our justice system works, and I was glad he did.
The defense attorney asked one juror, chosen, it seems, at random, "Do you have any preconceived notions about my client's guilt or innocence regarding the charges against him?" Trying to demonstrate her objectivity, the juror naturally replied, "No, I don't." Most of us, I think, would answer the same way. But the attorney, instead of being satisfied with that answer, said, "That's the wrong answer. You should have a preconceived notion, and that notion should be 'not guilty'." He then went on to explain the fundamental premise of our justice system - that any defendant in a criminal trial is, and must be, presumed innocent until the state proves otherwise.
The entire burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (not any doubt, but a reasonable doubt). There is no burden whatsoever on the defense to prove innocence. Of course, the defense will provide such evidence as they believe will be exculpatory, but the burden of proof rests solely with the state. And we can be thankful for that. Imagine a "justice" system that makes you prove your innocence. If you are innocent, there is nothing to prove and you can't prove a negative, according to the rules of logic. This a kangaroo-court way of doing things - the system of dictators and tyrants. Think of how many times in history people were brought up on bogus charges by a vindictive government or ruler and were subsequently disposed of in one way or another, being unable to "prove" their innocence. That stands the entire concept of justice on its head. You and I are innocent, in the eyes of the law, until proven otherwise.
Does this ensure justice in every case? Of course not. Inept prosecutors or defense attorneys can blow a case that should have been a slam-dunk. Jurors can be influenced in myriad ways, legal and otherwise. The innocent may sometimes be unjustly punished, but not often, thankfully - and the appeals process helps reverse such wrongs. The guilty may go free, perhaps more often, because - again - the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
This principle was most famously expressed by the famous British jurist Sir William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, a reference work generally considered the greatest in the history of Law. He wrote in the mid-Eighteenth Century: "...for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer." Such a sentiment has been also been attributed to American Founders (who were no doubt familiar with Blackstone) Benjamin Franklin and John Adams, as well as Blackstone's legal precursors, Sir Matthew Hale and Sir John Fortescue; and as far back as Jewish legal theorist Maimonedes several centuries before Blackstone, and even the book of Genesis (18: 22-33)
I'll be interested to see how the case I was on, however briefly, eventually turns out. I won't name the case, in case any of you readers are called to sit on that jury! In the meantime, we can celebrate the fact that our justice system presumes innocence - the correct default position for true justice to triumph.
