Why Do We Instruct Jurors That The Defendant Is Presumed To Be Innocent?

The voir dire examination of potential jurors is a laborious process seeking to select open-minded jurors who do not have preconceived opinions that favor either the prosecution or the defense.  Why then does the judge begin every criminal trial by telling the jury that the defendant is presumed to be innocent?  Is the judge telling the jurors that they must favor the defendant in deciding the case?  Not really.  However, discussing the presumption of innocence with the jury is a "sticky wicket."  For instance, many defense counsel like to ask the voir dire question: "as you sit there now, do you believe the defendant to be innocent."  Some judges deem the question to be proper to test the willingness of jurors to accept the presumption of innocence.  Contrariwise, some judges do not allow the question because it asks the jurors to express an opinion on the ultimate issue they must decide: "guilty or not guilty."  The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Coffin v. United States (1895), confirmed that the presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of criminal justice.  How the presumption "plays out" in a trial is made clear by the Supreme Court's categorization of the presumption as "evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf."  Therefore, the accused begins the trial with some evidence in his favor (the presumption of innocence).  It is the jury's responsibility to consider the presumption of innocence, in the same manner as they consider all the other evidence in the case, before rendering a verdict.  The jury's responsibility to consider all of the evidence presents another "sticky wicket."  What is reasonable doubt?  That question will be the subject of another post.
       John Greanias, Copyright 2014

Supreme Court, the case is in your hands and you are on the clock.

Jet airplane travel and the digital age have sped up almost everything.  Even so, the time between oral argument and a decision in the United States Supreme Court never seems to accelerate.  Although the average interval is about four months, some cases take much longer.  The very first case presented for oral argument in the Supreme Court was heard on August 2, 1791 and decided the next day, August 3, 1791. The case is West v. Barnes, and each of the justices issued a separate opinion.  William West lost the case and consequently lost his Rhode Island farm.  However, he was not kept on tenterhooks for months awaiting the court's decision.  We should strive for such swift justice for all litigants.
John Greanias, Copyright 2014

What happens after the bubble pops?

If you want to be (or if you are) an attorney working in the public sector, Bailout, by Neil Barofsky is a "must read" book for you.  The cartoon above was published in 1901. Chasing the bull's bubbles is nothing new.  However, public policies adopted after a major "pop" are uniquely related to the economic and political realities of the time.  The recent financial crisis reached a tipping point on September 15, 2008.  On October 15, 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Neil Barofsky received a telephone call that launched him into the inner sanctum of the government's efforts to promote a recovery.  However, as the Special Inspector General in charge of oversight of the TARP bailout funds, he was on the "outside" looking into the policies and procedures of the "inside" decision makers.  What he learned and experienced is amazing and instructive.  In his book he does not pull any punches in "calling out" individuals and misguided programs.  His story of courage and persistence in the face of powerful opposition should serve as an inspiration for attorneys seeking to serve in the best interest of the public's welfare.                                                   John Greanias, Copyright 2014

What did the United States Supreme Court decide in its first case?

The study of Constitutional Law should start at the beginning.  So, what did the United States Supreme Court decide in its first case, docketed in 1791?  The answer is easy. NOTHING!  The parties in Van Staphorst v. Maryland settled the case before it was called for oral arguments.  Judges like nothing better than settlement without trial, so we can presume that the justices were satisfied with the manner in which the case was resolved. The Van Staphorst brothers loaned money to the State of Maryland during the Revolutionary War, and Maryland resisted repayment of the loan.  Although the case did not establish any new "rule of law," it clearly stands as the first example of the "rule of fact" that sometimes it takes a lawsuit to get the other party to a dispute to become reasonable.