>You seem to forget that Justin speaks what he calls "lawish," not
>English.
There is no such thing as "Lawish", there are only two meanings of "presumption of innocence". In the English language it plainly and simply means that an accused person is regarded in law as innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a competent court. In American English it apparently means the opposite, that an accused is presumed guilty unless he can prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
> My translation of "wrongful conviction" in his text is
>"decided to be wrongful by an appellate court." Guilt or innocence,
>at least in the sense of those words held by users of English,
>have nothing to do with it.
Actual guilt or innocence are, as you say, not relevant to the definition of either the English language or American definition of "presumption of innocence". Obviously. To say that a fact or set of facts is "presumed" obviously implies something other than that a fact or set of facts simply *is*. In effect a legal doctrine of presumption requires that unless and/or until certain conditions are met (in this instance "until proven innocent...") then a *fiction* is to be treated as fact.
So in law words are usually subject to their normal definition unless you read them carelessly. Except in the American English, where the "innocent" in "innocent until proven guilty" apparently connotes the exact opposite of its dictionary definition - it means "guilty". A peculiar but not entirely unique mutation of the language. This is not "Lawish" at work, but American English. Americans have no difficulty understanding what guilty until proven innocent means, apparently, so it seems unlikely that the phrase has a different meaning in law than it does to ordinary Americans.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas