People exonerated by trial, over public opinion

I’m trying to explain the value of due process.

Can you provide any examples over people clearly exonerated by trial, who were overwhelmingly thought guilty, prior to the trial, in the mind of the general public?

Thanks.

OJ Simpson.

Trials don’t prove people innocent. “Exoneration” happens if the prosecution fails to prove guilt. Which is what happened in the Simpson case. Legally he’s innocent, no matter what the public might think.

You want cases where the accused was proved innocent? Doesn’t happen. Not the defence’s job. And no matter how strong the evidence, there will always be some people saying he was guilty.

George Zimmerman.

And O.J. Simpson.

Lizzie Borden

Sam Sheppard, whose murder conviction was overturned, and acquitted in the retrial.

Of course many people still thought he was guilty. See also, Simpson, O.J.

Michael Jackson.

Casey Anthony

Although, in her case, the jury found the DA too far-reaching with first degree murder. If she had been charged with negligent homicide, she probably would have been convicted, if we are to believe interviews with jurors following the trial.

Also, the people listed here are not “innocent,” they are “not guilty.” It’s an important legal distinction, and there are whole books on it.

OJ Simpson, for example, is not entirely legally innocent, as he was found responsible in a civil trial.

It is possible to get a finding of “factual innocence” from a court of justice, and some people who have been found “not guilty” seek this further stage of exoneration to restore their reputations.

Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle over the rape and manslaughter of actress Virginia Rappe.

The press reported every single bad rumor and gossip over the case claiming Arbuckle was a fat pervert who stuck a coke bottle in Rappe’s vagina and prosecution was heavily influenced by the lead prosecutor wanted this to further his political career by getting a guilty verdict. Public demand for a guilty verdict was so intense that Arbuckle’s wife who stayed on his side was opened fire on when she walked up the court room steps one day.

There were three trials, the first two ended up deadlocked because the defense was heavily hampered with what evidence they could present and with coerced witnesses from the prosecution. The third trial had the defense go all out using all their evidence and throwing out the coerced witnesses and the end result saw the third jury only taking six minutes to deliberate, spending five of those minutes penning a public apology for Arbuckle having to go through this entire ordeal

Acquittal is not enough for Roscoe Arbuckle. We feel that a great injustice has been done him. We feel also that it was only our plain duty to give him this exoneration, under the evidence, for there was not the slightest proof adduced to connect him in any way with the commission of a crime. He was manly throughout the case and told a straightforward story on the witness stand, which we all believed. The happening at the hotel was an unfortunate affair for which Arbuckle, so the evidence shows, was in no way responsible. We wish him success and hope that the American people will take the judgment of fourteen men and woman who have sat listening for thirty-one days to evidence, that Roscoe Arbuckle is entirely innocent and free from all blame.

Of course this still ruined his career, being banned from Hollywood movies due to outrage but time has been kind to him.

Thanks. George Zimmerman should work in this case.

O.J. Simpson, not so much.

It didn’t make it to trial, but the Duke lacrosse case is an example of why due process and protecting the rights of the accused is important.

William Kennedy Smith, in what I personally think was a grave miscarriage of justice, especially since less than a year later, he was accused of doing the same thing again. And one of the idiot jurors was quoted as saying “He’s too good-looking to need to rape someone,” or words to that effect.

IANAL, but I have trouble with this distinction.

How do you explain away, “Innocent until proven guilty.” ?

It’s a legal fiction, and applicable only in a court of law. That is, jurors are obligated by law to assume the accused to be innocent, and then determine if the prosecution has proven all the elements of the accused crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s a wrong assumption - most accused are guilty, which is why most convictions are part of plea agreements - but in order to protect the rights of the minority of wrongfully accused, the presumption of innocence is enshrined into law.

IOW there’s nothing to explain away. It’s a standard of proof that we, as a society, have decided to impose on the state before the state is allowed to take away the liberty, property, or life, of someone. Factual innocence, in the sense of “he didn’t really do it” has nothing to do with it. OJ Simpson really did kill Nicole and Ron, and isn’t entitled to the general public pretending that he didn’t. He can’t suffer any criminal consequence from the killing, but he still did it.

Regards,
Shodan

IMO **kayaker **has a point, but it’s one of word-smithing, not of fact.

Strictly speaking, the idiom should be “‘not guilty’ until proven guilty.” The concept of “innocence” is simply outside the purview of the criminal courts. As Shodan just explained so ably.

I totally understand what Shodan and LSLGuy are saying. But. There are innocent people accused of crime. It happens.

Indeed, the presumption of innocence is an important part of Roman law, Islamic law, Anglo-American common law, and other forms of law. It’s considered a fundamental right in many/most modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics.

I just hate to see it poo-pooed.

I don’t understand what you mean by poo-pooed in this case.

Certainly there are idiots that think “If he’s accused he must be guilty.” Those folks deserve all the scorn we can muster. But I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about. Though I could be wrong in that.

So what is it exactly that you are objecting to? Please explain a bit more.

Personally, I prefer ‘Not guilty unless proven guilty.’ In my mind, ‘until’ assumes that guilt will eventually be proven.

The police in the Freddie Gray case were exonerated in their trials.

I think OJ is a murderer who got lucky at trial. So I’m not arguing that his not guilty verdict means that he is innocent. I just like the general idea that someone charged with a crime, generally, is innocent until proven guilty.

I’m doing a lousy job explaining because I’m busy at work; if I weren’t the boss I’d be fired. But yes, there’s a taste of “if he’s accused he must be guilty” in what I read when people say that someone found “not guilty” is not “innocent”.

ETA: It’s kind of like arguing that no, we are not all created equal. It can be argued, but it’s just such a wonderful idea, I’d rather not.

I’ve known someone charged of a crime they did not do, but had no alibi and circumstantial evidence made them look bad. He was found “not guilty” at trial after refusing a plea deal. He was innocent. Guess I’m affected by experiencing his situation.

Excellent point. Not one I’d noticed before. From now on I’ll follow your formulation.