In court he has just said under oath that the man is a murder, and that he will prove it, and that the jury should be ashamed to think otherwise.
So is there any reason to pussyfoot at the press conference while they await the verdict?
And, yeah, I know his oath is not one of giving evidence, but it is an oath and he is stating the guy is a murderer. Flat out. No hedging or alleged talk in front of the jury.
Go to the board and write 100 times: A person isn’t guilty of a crime until the jury says so.
Prosecutors’ arguments are not under oath.
If the jury acquits wouldn’t the prosecutors having publicly called him, or her, a murderer be slander?
Every prosecutor must accuse the defendant of having committed a crime. They couldn’t do their job otherwise. They have a certain type of immunity that allows them to do so, in most legal systems.
Well sure at a Grand Jury or a preliminary hearing or at the trial. But at a news conference after the trial is over?
After the trial is over if the person is found guilty of murder, then yes, it is my understanding that you can call them a murderer (based on my journalism studies).
But not before.
Unless you are under French law.
Prosecutors can, and often do, continue to maintain that the defendant is guilty, after acquittal.
The (ex-)defendant could then proceed to sue the prosecutor for slander because of this.
They seldom do, because that would just give the prosecutor another chance to prove that they are guilty (and this time under more lenient Civil Court rules). Like OJ Simpson, who beat the rap in the Criminal Case, but lost in Civil Court. Most defendants are glad to be done with the case with an acquittal.
And there is a cost factor involved. In a Civil case, the ex-defendant has to pay for his own lawyer (no ‘court appointed at no cost’) and legal fees. But many times the prosecutor fighting a slander suit would be considered related to his job, and the costs would be paid by the prosecutors office. So it would be expensive for an ex-defendant, and many of them do not have great financial resources.
Could you elaborate about this part of the French law?
In this country, you can call someone a murderer or a thief in print after he’s been convicted of it without fear of being sued for libel. But before conviction is another thing.
In press releases and announcements, my experience is that DAs state unequivocally what the defendant did, when and how he did it, and so on. However, their releases always finish with the disclaimer that “The charges are merely an accusation and the defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.”
Here is an old local example. They always speak from a position of certainty, but they do so advisedly.
I suppose they would not want to be accused of making it impossible for the defendant to get a fair trial or fair sentencing. I don’t know what the law is there. Still, if they can speak that way in press releases and at press conferences before the trial starts, I figure they can probably do it after the trial has started - though I don’t know if they would want to.
That said, however, I may’ve overlooked something important: the DA’s office still doesn’t call any of those people “the thief” or “the defrauder” or anything. It’s stated that they committed these crimes, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that those words are absent.
I am in Australia but a workmate actually had an experience of this in a high profile case some years ago. He was a juror and they had listened to evidence for weeks in (IIRC) a complicated drugs/conspiracy case. While the prosecutor was making his closing address he said something that prompted the defence lawyer to leap to his feet and object. A whole lot of legal to-ing and fro-ing went on, the jury was removed, arguments were made and the judge recalled the jury to declare a mistrial. Apparently the prosecutor had made some remark that presupposed the conviction of one defendent, who was not yet convicted, as evidence of their guilt. The guy I worked with said that no-one on the jury had any idea what was going on and the remark had just gone over their heads and couldn’t have had any influence.
Lawyer: I’ll ask the questions here, Carjacker Willie!
Lawyer 2: Objection!
Judge: I’m going to allow it – it characterizes the defendant as a carjacker.
(from Simpsons, “The great money caper”)
is this a US court? I’m not familiar with their rules but the above seems a bit odd based on my limited experience of UK courts -
a) as i understand it it is fine to say ‘I will prove today that the acused IS a murderer’ but it is not okay to seperate the statements eg ‘he is a murderer and I will prove it.’ The difference is the first is a conditional statement, it accuses but does not state as fact, whereas the second one does state as fact which it isnt legally true at that point in the trial. (the same goes for the rpess conferance before the verdict)
b) guilt tripping the jury is surely not allowed, in the same way threatning them is not allowed. the idea is to sway their opinion with evidence and nothing else. I realise a certain amount of this does go on but not this blatently.
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong - but it is my understanding that French law is the opposite, you need to prove innocence, not guilt.
Cites ??
In the UK you’ll often hear the police / Crown Prosecution Service say “we are not looking for anyone else in connection with this crime” when a defendent has been freed (perhaps due to an administrative error or other procedural glitch).
It’s basically telling the world, we know he did it but the court / jury / system was too dumb to convict.
Widespread belief, but utter bullshit.
That’s the basis of the presumption of innocence under french law, since the 1789 declaration of man and citizen rights has constitutional value, as mentionned in the preamble of the 1958 constitution.
For instance :
The rest of this article adress the case of a person pulically presented as guilty before he has been found so, and would answer nicely the OP question if it were about french law.