So where is the presumption of innocence?
Suck it up and accept it, peon.
Lots of us appreciate Bricker’s law related posts. They are well reasoned, researched, and supported by citations. They are pretty good representations of what the law has to say on certain subjects. He (and other lawyers on the Dope) do a pretty good job separating their personal feelings with their legal opinions. It’s a big part of Fighting Ignorance, something that requires special training and experience, and I’m grateful for their contributions.
That has no bearing on whether I agree with his (or others) personal or political opinions on the same subjects.
They have to prove the defendant had sex with an underage person.
And yes, they have to prove you were in possession of an illegal substance as regards the OP. As shown though proving possession is trivial.
So you got nothing. Thought as much.
Which differs from proving you had sex with a minor… how, exactly?
“The opinion comes a year after federal judge in Orlando ruled the entire Florida law was unconstitutional, calling it a significant departure from the notion that defendants are innocent until proven guilty.”
“He (Justice Perry) opines, “ the innocent will from the start be presumed guilty” and that the inevitable convictions and sentences which may follow will be a profound disgrace. Justice Perry further cautions that the majority opinion “breaks sacred law” and may threaten the principles of the presumption of innocence and burden of proof in contexts well beyond drug possession analyzed in this case.”
So, at least one federal judge and a Justice of the Florida Supreme Court did believe the law went against the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” The idiots in this thread can at least be assured they are no more idiotic than those two.
For the sake of argument let’s assume we have someone who is accused of statutory rape and someone who is accused of possession of a controlled substance. Let’s also assume both are actually innocent.
The case of possession is proved by nothing more than a cop saying they found drugs on you. Done deal.
Rape cases are harder to prove and the state has to put forth a good deal more effort in most cases to secure a conviction. The defendant has a real opportunity for defense (lack of DNA, lack of witnesses, lack of opportunity, he said/she said and so on).
Carmady, what are you quoting from? On a separate note, the First District’s opinion answers rather a lot of questions raised in this thread.
Here is the actual decision:
“The victim would be faced with the Hobson’s choice of pleading guilty or going to trial where he is presumed guilty because he is in fact guilty of the two elements. He must then prove his innocence for lack of knowledge against the permissive presumption the statute imposes that he does in fact have guilty knowledge. Such an outcome is not countenanced under applicable constitutional proscriptions.”
“But the affirmative defense at issue is hardly a friendly opportunity; rather, it is an onerous burden that strips defendants—including genuinely innocent defendants—of their constitutional presumption of innocence.”
“Under the majority’s decision and the above examples, the innocent will from the start be presumed guilty.”
“The innocent will thus have to bear the considerable time and expense involved in conducting discovery, calling witnesses, and otherwise crafting a case for their innocence—all while the State, with its vastly superior resources, should be bearing the burden of proving their guilt.
The innocent will then hear their jury instructed on the permissive presumption that they knew of the illicit nature of the substance in question.”
It is extremely clear that Justice Perry considers the decision to go against the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this as well.
The presumption of innocence isn’t a constitutional principle.
But clearly Justice Perry thinks it is:
“But the affirmative defense at issue is hardly a friendly opportunity; rather, it is an onerous burden that strips defendants—including genuinely innocent defendants—of their constitutional presumption of innocence.”
Yes, he does. Unfortunately, he’s wrong. Your point that at least two judges don’t think the OP is wildly off base is well taken.
And this is in 49 states, not just Florida, correct?
From reading this thread, one gets the impression that in this hypo Florida would convict you, but the other 49 states would require the state to go to the ends of the earth to disprove your half-assed story about how you didn’t know the drugs got on your passenger seat.
I believe that in any state, regardless of the standard, if you are found with drugs, the jury is going to want a convincing story as to why you had them. Yes, you have a right to remain silent, but that’s not always the best legal strategy. Remaining silent when a police officer is going to testify that he found you with drugs is usually one of those times when it isn’t best.
So, except in the very few cases where a jury is split down the middle on who to believe, does this law have any real practical effect, or is this much ado about nothing?
Apparently it is.
Note that I cited Coffin v. United States in the OP.
Do it slowly - you’re being paid by the hour.
Regards,
Shodan
You should have read it first. Coffin held that the presumption of innocence was a staple of common law, and thus a binding rule, not that it was a constitutional rule. You correctly identified it in the OP as “a cornerstone of criminal law”.
Indeed, Coffin was decided before either the 5th or 6th Amendments were incorporated against the states.
ETA: for what it’s worth, I’m not as down on Wikipedia as a source as most people, but it’s much less useful as a legal resource than on, say, bears.
As described earlier in the thread, there are many ways to support the conclusion that the defendant knew the illicit nature of what they possessed. You could show they handled it, perhaps using fingerprints, show that it was in plain view and recognizable, discover where they obtained it or sold it, and so on. Moreover, investigators would need to be careful as messing up evidence would hurt the chance for a conviction.
But if knowledge of the illicit nature is NOT an element of the crime, as under this law, it seems that investigations could change. Since all the elements of the crime would be proved already, would they look as hard into where the substance came from? Would they be as careful with the evidence? Or would the defendant be expected to do that investigation himself?
It seems that any mistakes made by the investigators could harm an innocent defendant. The same type of evidence that formerly would have been used against him is now the potentially exculpatory evidence he needs to defend himself. For example, if fingerprints (of the true owner of the drugs) are mishandled or lost, the defendant can’t use them to save himself. If evidence of the true origin of the substance is not recognized by police, the defendant is the one who takes the fall. And of course, knowledge of the dangerous situation they would be in could cause innocent defendants to plead guilty for a lesser punishment.
Wouldn’t you still be guilty of possession and attempt to distribute???
So not a constitutional rule but merely a dictate from the highest court in the land? Miranda rights are not in the constitution but the SCOTUS put it there. Levels of judicial scrutiny came out of Korematsu and, IIRC, was actually in a footnote.
Is there a practical difference beyond some future SCOTUS possibly twiddling with it? Can the lower courts look at Coffin v. US and shrug their shoulders and say the justice was just pontificating so they can ignore it?
You think statutory rape is punished more harshly than drug possession?