guilty until proven innocent

The death of the presumption of innocence
A dirty secret of the American judicial system is that juries are hardly fair and impartial
By Andrew Cohen, The Week
April 10, 2014
Imagine you are a defendant awaiting trial on criminal charges that could send you to prison for the rest of your life. You are sitting at the counsel table during voir dire, the process by which a jury is selected before a trial.

The prosecutor asks a potential juror: “You haven’t heard any evidence. How would you vote?” The potential juror responds: “I would have to vote guilty.”

Your trial judge pipes up. He’s supposed to ensure that you receive a fair trial and that the jurors who will sit in judgment upon you are neutral, objective, and willing to see and hear the evidence with an open mind. The judge asks the prospective juror: “Could you return a verdict of not guilty if the government doesn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?” The would-be juror responds: “I don’t think I would be able to.”

The prosecutor—who wants this juror on the panel because he wants to convict you—presses on. He asks the juror: “Let’s say the victim takes the stand [and] you flat-out don’t believe her. In fact, you think she’s lying. You look at her [and conclude], ‘I don’t believe a word coming out of her mouth.’ Are you going to convict this man anyway?”

The potential juror responds: “That depends. I still feel he was at fault.”

How would you feel if this juror were allowed to join the panel that determined your fate? Would you feel as though you had received a fair trial by an impartial panel, as the Sixth Amendment commands? Or would you feel that the trial judge had failed to protect your presumption of innocence?

My guess is you would feel cheated. I know I would. But yet this precise scenario unfolded in California in 2009. This juror was allowed to serve on this trial. And to date, no judge has declared it a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights.

Now, in this particular case, the defendant, Jose Felipe Velasco, was accused of an extremely heinous crime. He was an alleged serial child rapist who had gotten a 14-year-old girl pregnant after having some form of sex with her 21 times. But that should not change our minds about whether this man should be presumed innocent and be entitled to a fair trial. Indeed, this is precisely why we have constitutional rights in criminal cases—so that fairness and due process come even to the despised.

R. Scott Moxley, a veteran reporter and columnist for OC Weekly, brought this story to national prominence this week—and it’s a remarkably ugly picture in every way. Not only were the charges awful, not only is this defendant as unsympathetic a figure as the criminal justice system churns out, but the way the case was handled was ignoble, too. Thousands of years’ worth of the presumption of innocence shouldn’t go out the window just because a defendant is accused of heinous crimes.

The potential juror in the case, known today only as Juror 112, was permitted to sit in judgment upon Velasco only after she promised—after extensive questioning by the prosecutor, and over the objection of defense attorneys—that she thought she could “try” to be fair to the defendant. This “promise” was good enough for the trial judge, a former prosecutor, as well as two federal judges who later reviewed the transcript to determine whether Velasco’s Sixth Amendment rights had been violated.

What were these judges thinking? We’ll never really know. Unlike Juror 112, the jurists did not volunteer any candid assessments of the situation. They did not fully explain how any reasonable person, reviewing the transcript of the jury selection process before Velasco’s trial, could have come away from it believing that this juror was going to give the defendant the benefit of all reasonable doubts. It was enough, they said, that she pledged to “try.”

The dirty secret here is that what happened in this case happens every day in courtrooms all over the country. Judges and lawyers are desperate to seat juries, while potential jurors are desperate to avoid jury duty or to put their stamp upon the proceedings. As a result, the business of selecting jurors occurs with a sort of wink and a nod. Jurors are asked to put aside whatever preconceived notions they have about a case—or about justice generally, or about the defendant in particular—and so long as they say they will do so they are allowed to join a panel that determines, in some cases, who lives and who dies, and who goes to prison for 123 years to life.

Sometimes, as we see here, the benefit inures to prosecutors. Velasco’s prosecutor wanted this juror on the panel because he knew that she would vote to convict the defendant. And so he attempted to “rehabilitate” her in the eyes of the judge. Think about the metaphysical ramifications of that: we ask citizens, like this juror, to lie about their open-mindedness so that we may place them on juries where they then are charged with determining which witnesses are lying during their trial testimony.

But sometimes this fuzziness during voir dire helps the defendant. I will never forget Michael Tigar, the greatest trial lawyer I ever saw, save Oklahoma City bombing defendant Terry Nichols’ life during jury selection when he convinced a juror who was opposed to the death penalty (and thus technically ineligible to sit on a capital jury) to keep an open mind about it. On and on the questioning went until she promised to do so. And then, guess what? She was likely one of the jurors who refused to recommend a death sentence for Timothy McVeigh’s co-conspirator.

Why does it matter if a child rapist is judged by people who consider him guilty before they have seen any of the evidence against him? Because the presumption of innocence goes back thousands of years, to the Old Testament, to Greek and to Roman law, and to English common law, from which American law was born. Because the United States Supreme Court, 120 years ago in a case styled Coffin v. United States, decreed that “the principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our current law.”

That is still the law of this land. It has not since been overturned. There are no exceptions to that rule in cases of alleged murderers or child rapists. Judges and jurors don’t get to decide when they will honor this rule and when they won’t. The “rehabilitation” of jurors like Juror 112 may have sped up the pace of Velasco’s trial but it created a result that violates the Constitution and is unworthy of any respect.

The lesson here isn’t that Juror 112 should have just kept to herself her visceral prejudgment of the case. The lesson is that our justice system needs to react more justly when citizens like this are so candid in declaring their unworthiness to serve.


Andrew Cohen is a contributing editor at The Atlantic, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, and a legal analyst for 60 Minutes and CBS Radio News. He has covered the law and justice beat since 1997 and was the 2012 winner of the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award for commentary.


Groove of the Day

Listen to Atoms For Peace at a live performance of ” Judge, Jury and Executioner”

Listen to Atoms For Peace in a studio performance of “Judge, Jury and Executioner”

Which do you like best?


5 Responses to “guilty until proven innocent”

  1. 1 William King
    April 11, 2014 at 8:04 am

    I have 2 things to say , first , Declaring a child as an adult is the worst case of guilty until proven innocent and secondly the law allows mother nature to screw the child further because of their natural growth into adulthood . Prosecutors delay trials as a child grows and the final results are the child will face a jury as an older version of the one who was originally charged in the first place. How can this be called fair justice? This system stinks and it surely needs major changes…………………..

    • 2 UKscot
      April 11, 2014 at 11:01 am

      I agree with you, you only have to look at the Jordan Brown case to come to that conclusion. I think the damage is done to defendants before their case even reaches a court, let alone a jury, from the hyperbole that the media belch forth. In America there needs to be some restriction on the covering of cases before it gets to court, especially where children are concerned. There should be a definite ban on the releasing of ‘mug shots’ of children and the age old favourite of the perp walk should be out right banned for children (don’t get me started on the shackles and jumpsuits) to get them on the right path to a fair trial. No child should be declared an adult, it’s insane never mind biologically impossible. Once the court decides the child is an adult, what happens if they’re proved innocent? Legally their an adult now, right? Can the say 11yr old adult turn to its parents and say I’m going to live by myself, or apply for its drivers licence or smoke or drink or consent to marriage? Insane. Totally and utterly. America turn their children into adults ( in the court system) for one reason only, to hand down the most severest of punishments ( with the added bonus of being re elected for being tough on the juveniles).

      • April 11, 2014 at 11:32 am

        I agree with you completely. Americans should look at your sum-up about justice for juveniles and realize this is how others in foreign countries view us. They are correct, and we should be ashamed.

      • 4 William King
        April 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm

        At the same time that Alex and Derek King was in the Escambia jail being charged as adults there was at least one other child by the name of Daniel Carter who was 15 and charged with murder and his attorney was the same attorney that Alex had and the the same prosecutor David Rimmer, to make a long story short Daniel was acquitted and released due to the child abuse that he had suffered before he defended himself against his uncle. I was there for that trial and I was one of the people who greeted Daniel that evening upon his release but immediately after the trial I had the chance to talk to the press from the Pensacola Journal and I asked them how can a child be declared an adult and eventually be acquitted because of the child abuse that was thrown upon him? On a side note, during the trial I had on a t-shirt with Alex and Derek on it just for David Rimmers eyes……………..Bill King

  2. 5 BobH
    December 2, 2014 at 5:57 pm

    If a kid is tried as an adult, should the jury be all 12-16 years old?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: