Criminal procedure
Criminal trials and convictions
Rights of the accused
Fair trial · Speedy trial Jury trial · Counsel Presumption of innocence Exclusionary rule1 Self-incrimination Double jeopardy2
Verdict
Conviction · Acquittal Not proven3 Directed verdict
Sentencing
Mandatory · Suspended Custodial Dangerous offender4, 5 Capital punishment Execution warrant Cruel and unusual punishment Life · Indefinite
Post-sentencing
Parole · Probation Tariff6 · Life licence6 Miscarriage of justice Exoneration · Pardon Sexually violent predator legislation1
Related areas of law
Criminal defenses Criminal law · Evidence Civil procedure
Portals
Law · Criminal justice
1 US courts. 2 Not in English/Welsh courts. 3 Scottish courts. 4 English/Welsh courts. 5 Canadian courts. 6 UK courts.
v · d · e

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred by the Latin Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty) is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).

Contents 1 Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat 1.1 Common law 1.2 Civil law 2 Meaning 3 The fundamental right 4 The presumption of innocence in modern practice 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References 8 External links

[edit] Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ^[1] (Latin: the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies), is a Latin legal term used to refer to the principle of presumption of innocence.

[edit] Common law

In British common law, the term means, loosely, "the onus of proving a fact rests upon the man".^[2][3] Another rough translation is, "The proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies." ^[4][5]

The fully stated maxim is, allegedly: "Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."^[6]

[edit] Civil law

The maxim has been adapted by many civil law systems, including Brazil,^[7] Italy,^[8][9] Philippines,^[10] Poland,^[11] Spain,^[12] and France. ^[13]

[edit] Meaning

"Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.^[14] This is often expressed in the phrase innocent until proven guilty coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760–1840).^[15] Garrow insisted that accusers be robustly tested in court. An objective observer in the position of the juror must reasonably conclude that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime.^[16]

The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.^[17] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.^[18] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.^[17] To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:^[14]

1. With respect to the critical facts of the case - whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime - the state has the entire burden of proof.
2. With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
3. The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.

This duty on the prosecution was famously referred to as the “golden thread” in the criminal law by Lord Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462:

“

Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...

”

[edit] The fundamental right

This right is so important in modern democracies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

• The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

• In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

• In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Everyone is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until their guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.

• Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.

• In the 1988 Brazilian constitution, article 5, section LVII states that "no one shall be considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable penal sentence".

• The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentense of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence.

[edit] The presumption of innocence in modern practice

Some legal systems have employed de jure presumptions of guilt, such as at an order to show cause criminal proceeding. Otherwise, accusations of presumption of guilt generally do not imply an actual legal presumption of guilt, but rather denounce some failures to ensure that suspects are treated well and are offered good defence conditions. Typical infringements include:

• In some systems, suspects may be detained for long periods while inquiries proceed. Such long imprisonment constitutes, in practice, a hardship and a punishment for the suspect, even though they have not been sentenced. (See speedy trial)

• Courts may prefer the testimonies of persons of certain class, status, ethnicity, sex, or economic or political standing over those of others, regardless of actual circumstances.

• In Europe and the New World, until the early 18th century, it was common for the justice system to have suspects tortured to extract confessions from them, since circumstantial evidence was rarely analyzed or admitted in those times. Although this practice is generally and has generally been disallowed in the more recent past, except during 20th-century fascist and Soviet governments, there have been attempts to introduce evidence obtained from suspects tortured elsewhere (so-called extraordinary rendition).

• Some public universities punish members of athletic teams accused of felonies after they are indicted, even if they have not been convicted. In some cases this may entail expulsion from the team and/or loss of the athletic scholarship.

• In the United Kingdom under the previous Government important recent inroads have been made against the principle. Defendants' previous convictions may in certain circumstances be revealed to juries. Although the suspect is not yet compelled to answer questions after formal arrest, failure to give information may now be prejudicial. Statute law was introduced that provides for criminal penalties for failing to decrypt data on request from the Police. If the suspect is unwilling (or even unable) to do so, it is an offence.^[19] Citizens can therefore be convicted and imprisoned without any evidence that the encrypted material was unlawful. Further, the onus is on the defendant to decrypt the data, and having lost the key or the password is not considered reasonable excuse.

In sexual offence cases such as rape, the onus is now on the defendant to prove innocence, S.75 of S.O.A 2003 states "the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act (see S.1 of SOA 2003) unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether (s)he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether (s)he reasonably believed it."

• Scottish law provides for a third finding: "not proven".

• In practice, a ruling of innocence will be returned only if the defense is able to provide proof of innocence that is superior to the prosecution's proof of guilt. The prosecution's proof of guilt, however flimsy, is expected to be rebutted with proof of innocence by a legal defense, before a ruling on guilt or innocence is given. The rebuttals of an innocent defense are likely to be produced from a position of poor knowledge about the alleged crime, which can allow the prosecution to easily discredit the defense's rebuttals. In essence, the defense is expected to concoct a story of events that explains the facts of the case without implicating the defendant. The defense rebuttal may solve the crime by identifying the true perpetrator, it may implicate another innocent defendant, or it may be discredited as an implausible fabrication.

• State funded defenses rarely match the quality of State funded prosecutions, so innocent defendants usually must fund a private defense to be able to match the power of the prosecution. The burden of funding a prosecution is collectively borne by the State. The burden of funding a private defense is individually borne by the accused. Individual defense resources in finances, information, equipment, expertise, research, and personnel, can never match the resources of a government, especially if the defendant is imprisoned. The accused is expected to pay the costs of a private defense, and also taxes that fund the prosecution.

Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt is certain. For example, they use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "alleged" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of.

More subtly, publishing of the prosecution's case without proper defence argumentation may in practice constitute presumption of guilt. Publishing a roster of arrested suspects may constitute undeserved punishment as well, since in practice it damages the reputation of innocent suspects. Private groups fighting certain abuses may also apply similar tactics, such as publishing the real name, address, and phone number of suspects, or even contacting the suspects' employer, friends and neighbors.

Modern practices aimed at curing social ills may run against presumption of innocence. Some civil rights activists feel that pre-employment drug testing, while legal, violates this principle, as potential employees are presumed to be users of illegal drugs, and must prove themselves innocent through the test. Similarly, critics argue that some dispositions of laws against sexual harassment or racial discrimination show a presumption of guilt. These dispositions were meant to ease the burden of proof on the victim, since in practice harassment or discrimination practices are hard to prove.

Civil rights activists note that the well-meaning practices so adopted may have a deleterious effect on justice being served. An example is the use in some sexual assault cases of a screen, which is set up to prevent the complainant from being distressed at the sight of the accused. Where a victim was in fact victimized by the accused, this may be argued to serve the principles of therapeutic justice.^[20] However, where an accused is innocent, this may inadvertently tell the jury that the court accepts that a crime was committed. This shifts the burden of proof traditionally on the prosecution to the defense, and risks putting the court in the role of judging guilt rather than the jury. Even more importantly, such a shield may also send a message that the complainant is upset by the sight of the accused, once again because guilt is seen to have been assumed by the court in so shielding the complainant. The psychological effects of such a screen have not yet been well researched, but the tension between the two views is a problem for therapeutic justice, which must weigh protection of genuine victims from genuine offenders against the potential for an unjust conviction that such protection may create.^[21]

[edit] See also

• Blackstone's formulation
• Trial by media
• Presumed Guilty, a 2009 Mexican documentary film

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• The Presumption of Innocence in the French and Anglo-American Legal Traditions
• The History of Presumed Innocence
• The effects of presuming innocence
• Justice:Denied magazine reports on the miscarriages of justice that occur when the presumption of innocence is not respected.
• Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394
• Presumption of Innocence for speeding violations

v · d · eArticles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights  General principles Article 1: Freedom, Egalitarianism, Dignity and Brotherhood Article 2: Universality of rights  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 3: Right to life, liberty and security of person · Article 4: Freedom from slavery · Article 5: Freedom from torture and cruel and unusual punishment · Article 6: Right to personhood · Article 7: Equality before the law · Article 8: Right to effective remedy from the law · Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile · Article 10: Right to a fair trial · Article 11.1: Presumption of innocence · Article 11.2: Prohibition of retrospective law · Article 12: Right to privacy · Article 13: Freedom of movement · Article 14: Right of asylum · Article 15: Right to a nationality · Article 16: Right to marriage and family life · Article 17: Right to property · Article 18: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion · Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression · Article 20.1: Freedom of assembly · Article 20.2: Freedom of association · Article 21.1: Right to participation in government · Article 21.2: Right of equal access to public office · Article 21.3: Right to universal suffrage  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 1 and 2: Right to freedom from discrimination · Article 22: Right to social security · Article 23.1: Right to work · Article 23.2: Right to equal pay for equal work · Article 23.3: Right to just remuneration · Article 23.4: Right to join a trade union · Article 24: Right to rest and leisure · Article 25.1: Right to an adequate standard of living · Article 25.2: Right to special care and assistance for mothers and children · Article 26.1: Right to education · Article 26.2: Human rights education · Article 26.3: Right to choice of education · Article 27.1: Right to participate in culture · Article 27.2: Right to intellectual property  Context, limitations and duties Article 28: Social order · Article 29.1: Social responsibility  · Article 29.2: Limitations of human rights · Article 29.3: The supremacy of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. Category:Human rights · Human rights portal

v · d · eParticular human rights Note: What is considered a human right is controversial and not all the topics listed are universally accepted as human rights. Civil and political Freedom from discrimination · Right to life · Right to die · Security of person · Liberty · Freedom of movement · Freedom from slavery · Personhood · Right to bear arms · Right to equality before the law · Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention · Freedom from torture · Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment · Right to a fair trial · Presumption of innocence · Right of asylum · Nationality · Freedom from exile · Privacy · Freedom of thought and conscience · Freedom of religion · Freedom of expression · Freedom of information · Freedom of assembly · Freedom of association · Right to protest · Universal suffrage · Marriage · Family life · Same-sex sexual relations Economic, social and cultural Labor rights · Fair remuneration · Equal pay for equal work · Trade union membership · Right to social security · Right to rest and leisure · Right to work · Right to property · Right to science and culture · Right to public participation · Right to education · Right to adequate standard of living · Right to housing · Right to development · Right to health · Right to healthcare · Right to water · Right to food · Right of return · Right to Internet access Reproductive Family planning · Reproductive health · Abortion · Freedom from involuntary female genital cutting War and conflict Civilian · Combatant · Freedom from genocide · Prisoner of war · War rape Related philosophy Negative and positive rights · Claim rights and liberty rights · Freedom versus license · Desert claim · Social contract · Meritocracy · Equality before the law