Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins
Innocence

Innocent until proven guilty applies only to the jury. It does not apply to the prosecutors. "Where there's smoke, there's fire" will get you bounced off a jury, but it's true enough for prosecutors.

170 posted on 06/03/2006 7:18:54 PM PDT by jude24 ("I said the law was powerless to help you, not punish you." - Chief Wiggam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]


To: jude24
only to the jury

I won't argue the finer points of that statement, because it isn't a constitutional statement.

In that regard, I firmly believe no accused person should be deprived of ANYTHING without due process of law, and that they MUST be assured that they will be able to confront those who are witnesses against them.

172 posted on 06/03/2006 7:27:10 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It. Supporting our Troops Means Praying for them to Win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

To: jude24
Innocent until proven guilty applies only to the jury. It does not apply to the prosecutors. Where there's smoke, there's fire" will get you bounced off a jury, but it's true enough for prosecutors.

Would you care to identify your jurisdiction, so any FReepers there can move to have your license lifted?

As a matter of fact in the military system, it does apply to the prosecutor. The military system, despite Hollywierd mis-portrayals, is not as adversarial as the civilian one has become. The "prosecutor" is after the facts, and assumes innocence until proved guilty. He has an obligation to present the facts, even those which indicate innocence, to the court, not just to the defense.

You sir or mamm, are supposed to do the same. You must be convinced of guilt before you even begin prosecution, after seeing the facts brought to you by the police or other investigators. If you prosecute based on "smoke", you are guilty of prosecutorial abuse. You choose to seek an indictment, or in other cases choose to take the matter to court.

The military system is different in that the convening authority brings the charges, and may do so with or without the advice of the prosecutors. Their job them is to bring out the truth. At least that's the way it worked on the Court Martial I was part of the Court for. The "prosecutor" emphasized that, the "judge" did as well. The Judge's role is considerably different as well, he's there to advise the Court as to what the law and regulations are, he or she does not control the proceedings as a civilian does.

The senior officer controls the proceedings, with the advice of the Judge. In a Court Martial, the members of the Court, who are analgous to the jury, are allowed to ask questions of witnesses, and of the prosecution and defense JAG officers. The Judge too, come to that.

179 posted on 06/03/2006 8:34:18 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson