Reply #14: Now you've gone full circle..... [View All]

[jberryhill]

You said:

"The convict has the burden to prove that the evidence was flawed"

In other words, "presumed guilty unless proven innocent".

The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is often stated without the word "presumed" in front of it.

What that phrase summarizes is "who has the burden to do what". In the initial trial, the accused is presumed innocent. What that means is that the state has the burden of proving guilt.

You seem to agree that, once that has happened, then if there is later new/conflicting/whatever evidence, then what you just said is "The convict has the burden to prove that the evidence was flawed".

In other words, you seem to agree that the convict has the initial burden, but you object to stating that presumption in the normal way.

"There are many instances where judges try to look at the totality of the evidence (for example, review for substantial evidence in various civil contexts)."

That is only done (a) if a jury trial was waived or (b) on appeal from a preliminary motion such as an injunction, summary judgment, etc. In the civil context, the Seventh Amendment bars re-examination of a fact tried to a jury. There's not much way around that.

"Judges often look at an abstract reasonable jury, as opposed to the specific jury."

You don't want to go there. Again, these are on appeals of an error of law for failure to prove an element, or in admissibility challenges post-trial. The standard there is whether "a reasonable jury could have found" a verdict if the challenged item was excluded. That is not the standard you are looking for, because it is an extremely low threshold.

The type of situation where that phrase is used is like this. Able is accused of hitting Baker with a baseball bat. Charlie, the blind schizophrenic guy, says that Able did it. Police raid Able's apartment without a warrant and find Baker's blood on a seized bat. Able is convicted. Able then challenges the conviction on the warrantless seizure of the bat.

The court has two questions there:

1. Whether to exclude the bat.
2. Whether a re-trial is warranted.

It is virtually guaranteed in those fact patterns that the appellate court will (a) exclude the bat, and (b) find that a re-trial is not warranted because "a reasonable jury could have found Charlie's testimony credible". That is how the overwhelming vast majority of those cases go. Since it seems that you have some exposure to basic civpro, then the phrase "scintilla of evidence" should resonate with you here. If you still have the chance, the second course of crimpro would be a buffet for you.

But you seem to have already conceded the point that even if actual innocence is a ground for reversal then, yes, "The convict has the burden to prove that the evidence was flawed". How do you end up agreeing with what I thought you disagreed?