Does the DA have to call a perp "the accused" or can he say "the murderer"?

[Max_Torque]

@Angels'Flight

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?

When I’m talking to a jury, I call him “the defendant”, because that’s just what he is. Plus, that takes away something of his identity and makes him more of a thing than a person. Defense attorneys usually call their client “Mr. Applekisser” or whatever, because they feel that that “humanizes” them to the jury.

Until they’re convicted, they’re alleged scumbags.

[Cunctator]

@clairobscur

Originally Posted by code civil, article 9.1
Chacun a droit au respect de la présomption d’innocence.

Thanks for posting that reference clairobscur. I’ve heard a few people make the comment that French law presumes guilt on the part of the accused. I’ve always found it hard to believe. Now I have something I can quote to refute it.

[Poysyn]

@clairobscur

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.

Thanks very much - I was actually told this by a teacher, if I had her email I would forward this along.

Thank you for fighting my ignorance

[Walloon]

@Cartooniverse

Cites ??

Los Angeles County Assistant District Attorney Bill Hodgman:

It’s a real tragedy that we have a mountain of evidence to convict O.J. Simpson, and he walks free. Meanwhile, Mark Fuhrman, with an almost total
absence of evidence against him, is convicted.

[Xema]

@t-bonham@scc.net

The (ex-)defendant could then proceed to sue the prosecutor for slander because of this.

He could sue, but would not likely prevail.

An important point is that an acquittal at a criminal trial can happen in two general ways: One is because the jury believed the accused did not commit the crime. The other is that the jury wasn’t sure (and may indeed have believed that the accused could well have committed the crime) but felt the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. So guilty (in a moral, rather than legal, sense) and acquitted are fully compatible.

[Xema]

@David Simmons

Go to the board and write 100 times: A person isn’t guilty of a crime until the jury says so.

I think you may be taking “innocent until proven guilty” a bit too literally. If that were really the operative principle, it would not be legal to restrain or imprison an accused criminal, since that person is by definition innocent.

What the law actually says is not that the accused is innocent, but that he is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Among other things, this means the burden of proof falls entirely on the prosecution - the defence is under no obligation to prove anything, and can succeed by doing nothing other than poking holes in the prosecution’s case.

[David_Simmons]

@Xema

@David Simmons

Go to the board and write 100 times: A person isn’t guilty of a crime until the jury says so.

I think you may be taking “innocent until proven guilty” a bit too literally. If that were really the operative principle, it would not be legal to restrain or imprison an accused criminal, since that person is by definition innocent.

What the law actually says is not that the accused is innocent, but that he is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Among other things, this means the burden of proof falls entirely on the prosecution - the defence is under no obligation to prove anything, and can succeed by doing nothing other than poking holes in the prosecution’s case.

Well if you read carefully you will notice that I didn’t say the individual was innocent. The OP asked why the prosecutor couldn’t call the defendant a murderer at a news conference before the jury had returned. I think my statement is justified.

The example in one post of a prosecutor saying that there was plenty of evidence to convict O.J. Simpson is also not a case of calling someone a murderer.

I don’t think any jury ever rules that so-and-so is innocent. The verdict is Not Guilty (of this particular crime) which isn’t the same thing as innocent. The tacit proviso is that the person may very well of done it but you, Mr. Prosecutor didn’t prove it to us beyond what we consider reasonable doubt.