• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Innocent until proven guilty? Where?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

K

Klord

Guest
I live in the state of Nevada. I Would like to know where in the Nevada constitution and where in the U.S. constitution that says a person is innocent until proven guilty. I have seached high and low on the internet and can not find a solid souce. I do see many reference to folks talking about it. But no specific article quoted.

Thanks!
Klord
 


E

emersonpoet

Guest
good question

i never thought about that- anyone got an answer?
 
A

ammstormy

Guest
do they ever answer really tough ones?

just kidding- but that is interesting- i know that america based its judicial system in opposition to british - guilty untill proven innocent, but i couldn't tell you where it's in ink in the constitution

good luck:)
 
K

Klord

Guest
In the USA you are guilty untill proven otherwise. Screw the innocent. That’s the way it really wurks in the USA. So true. But so sad. Screw what is politically correct....
 
B

Boxcarbill

Guest
Klord said:
I live in the state of Nevada. I Would like to know where in the Nevada constitution and where in the U.S. constitution that says a person is innocent until proven guilty. I have seached high and low on the internet and can not find a solid souce. I do see many reference to folks talking about it. But no specific article quoted.

Thanks!
Klord
Innocent until proven guilty is not a constitutional right per se but rather a presumption of the law. And that law goes way back to the Romans. (See quote taken from COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895) below) Presumptions allow us to have a beginning position. We presume that there will be a tomorrow and it is on that presumption that we make preparation for the upcoming day. Of course, most presumptions can be rebutted. Presumptions in law give the fact finder, judge or jury, a starting position from which to hear the evidence. The presumption of innocence is a starting position in evidence. If there is no evidence heard, then the presumption of innocence dictates an acquittal. The presumption of innocence is based upon the premise that most people obey the law; but since, obviously, not everyone does, the system allows for the rebuttal of the presumption by placing the burden of proof upon the state to come forth with sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. In a criminal case that burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt .

Try looking for the presumption of innocence in the respective state's Code of Criminal Procedure. For Nevada, here are the relevant statute:

NRS 175.191 Presumption of innocence: Acquittal in case of reasonable doubt. A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved; and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to be acquitted.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1427)

NRS 175.201 Presumption of innocence: Conviction of lowest degree of offense. Every person charged with the commission of a crime shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and when an offense has been proved against him, and there exists a reasonable doubt as to which of two or more degrees he is guilty, he shall be convicted only of the lowest.

(Added to NRS by 1967, 1427)


The following text is take from the majority opion in COFFIN v. U.S., 156 U.S. 432 (1895)


"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. [156 U.S. 432, 454] It is stated as unquestioned in the textbooks, and has been referred to as a matter of course in the decisions of this court and in the courts of the several states. See 1 Tayl. Ev. c. 5, 126, 127; Wills, Circ. Ev. c. 5, 91; Best. Pres. pt. 2, c. 1, 63, 64; Id. c. 3, 31-58; Greenl. Ev. pt. 5, 29, etc.; 11 Cr. Law Mag. 3; Whart. Ev. 1244; 2 Phil. Ev. ( Cowen & Hill's Notes) p. 289; Lilienthal's Tobacco v. U. S., 97 U.S. 237 ; Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430 , 7 Sup. Ct. 614; Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 320; State v. Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224; Alexander v. People, 96 Ill. 96; People v. Fairchild, 48 Mich. 31, 11 N. W. 773; People v. Millard, 53 Mich. 63, 18 N. W. 562; Com. v. Whittaker, 131 Mass. 224; Blake v. State, 3 Tex. App. 581; Wharton v. State, 73 Ala. 366; State v. Tibbetts, 35 Me. 81; Moorer v. State, 44 Ala. 15.

"Greenleaf traces this presumption to Deuteronomy, and quotes Mascardius Do Probationibus to show that it was substantially embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens. On Evidence, pt. 5, 29, note. Whether Greenleaf is correct or not in this view, there can be no question that the Roman law was pervaded with the results of this maxim of criminal administration, as the following extracts show:

'Let all accusers understand that they are not to prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable proof and is clearer than day.' Code, L. 4, tit. 20, 1, l. 25.

'The noble (divus) Trajan wrote to Julius Frontonus that no man should be condemned on a criminal charge in his absence, because it was better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.' Dig. L. 48, tit. 19, l. 5.
'In all case of doubt the most merciful construction of facts should be preferred.' Dig. L. 50, tit. 17, l. 56.

'In criminal cases the milder construction shall always be preserved.' Dig. L. 50, tit. 17, 1, 155, 2.

'In cases of doubt it is no less just than it is safe to adopt the milder construction.' Dig. L. 50, tit. 17, l. 192, 1. [156 U.S. 432, 455] Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, 'a passionate man,' seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, 'Oh, illustrious Caesar! if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?' to which Julian replied, 'If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?' Rerum Gestarum, lib. 18, c. 1. The rule thus found in the Roman law was, along with many other fundamental and human maxims of that system, preserved for mankind by the canon law. Decretum Gratiani de Presumptionibus, L. 2, T. 23, c. 14, A. D. 1198; Corpus Juris Canonici Hispani et Indici, R. P. Murillo Velarde, Tom. 1, L. 2, n. 140. Exactly when this presumption was, in precise words, stated to be a part of the common law, is involved in doubt. The writer of an able article in the North American Review (January, 1851), tracing the genesis of the principle, says that no express mention of the presumption of innocence can be found in the books of the common law earlier than the date of McNally's Evidence (1802). Whether this statement is correct is a matter of no moment, for there can be no doubt that, if the principle had not found formal expression in the common-law writers at an earlier date, yet the practice which flowed from it has existed in the common law from the earliest time.

"Fortescue says: 'Who, then, in England, can be put to death unjustly for any crime? since he is allowed so many pleas and privileges in favor of life. None but his neighbors, men of honest and good repute, against whom he can have no probable cause of exception, can find the person accused guilty. Indeed, one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape punishment of death than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally.' De Laudibus Legum Angliae (Amos' translation, Cambridge, 1825). [156 U.S. 432, 456] Lord Hale (1678) says: 'In some cases presumptive evidence goes far to prove a person guilty, though there be no express proof of the fact to be committed by him; but then it must be very warily pressed, for it is better five guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should die.' 2 Hale, P. C. 290. He further observes: 'And thus the reasons stand on both sides; and, though these seem to be stronger than the former, yet in a case of this moment it is safest to hold that in practice, which hath least doubt and danger,-'Quod dubitas, ne feceris." 1 Hale, P. C. 24.

"Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that 'the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.' 2 Bl. Comm. c. 27, marg. p. 358, ad finem.

"How fully the presumption of innocence had been evolved as a principle and applied at common law is shown in McKinley's Case (1817) 33 State Tr. 275, 506, where Lord Gillies says: 'It is impossible to look at it [a treasonable oath which it was alleged that McKinley had taken] without suspecting, and thinking it probable, it imports an obligation to commit a capital crime. That has been and is my impression. But the presumption in favor of innocence is not to be redargued by mere suspicion. I am sorry to see, in this information, that the public prosecutor treats this too lightly. He seems to think that the law entertains no such presumption of innocence. I cannot listen to this. I conceive that this presumption is to be found in every code of law which has reason and religion and humanity for a foundation. It is a maxim which ought to be inscribed in indelible characters in the heart of every judge and juryman, and I was happy to hear from Lord Hermand he is inclined to give full effect to it. To overturn this, there must be legal evidence of guilt, carrying home a decree of conviction short only of absolute certainty.' "
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top