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