> At 2:59 AM -0500 14/9/03, joand315 wrote:
>
>> I don't know if you've ever heard the song, but there were witnesses
>> against the hanged man, thus proving his guilt. His alibi was his
>> best friend's wife, so he couldn't or wouldn't speak up.
>
> I can't recall ever hearing the song. (I'm trying to download it as I
> write.)
An excellent illustration of how much you know about the States, Bill. It's a well-known folk song (at least it was well-known to the '60s folkie generation).
>
> I see by the lyrics that the witnesses recalled merely "That the man
> who ran looked a lot like me." Obviously that wouldn't satisfy the
> burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in a free country. A
> reasonable person would have to conclude that evidence to the effect
> that the accused "looked a lot like" the person witnessed running away
> leaves room for a reasonable doubt whether the accused is actually the
> person.
That's the whole point of the freakin' song, Bill. He was convicted on evidence that *should* have left a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. This has nothing whatsoever in the whole bloomin' world to do with presumption of innocence. He was presumed innocent until proven guilty until the jury rendered its verdict (mistakenly, according to the defendant). Nothing in the song contradicts that.
> Furthermore, taken as a whole the tragedy of the song is that the
> accused is unwilling to prove his innocence without dishonouring his
> lover. There doesn't seem to be any element of irony or outrage that
> he should need to prove his innocence despite the alleged presumption
> of innocence. Far from being an anomaly, this is taken for granted, so
> much so that it isn't even perceived as an injustice. This is alien to
> me, but the culture of guilty unless proven innocence is alien to me.
I'm not a lawyer, and have never been a defendant in any trial in the US or elsewhere. All I know is what I've seen from watching cop shows, etc. But my understanding of courtroom strategy is that he could have stayed off the witness stand the whole trial and still be considered innocent in a *legal sense* until the jury reached its verdict. But it was certainly in his interest to try to convince the jury he was innocent, and the tragedy of the song, as you say, is that he felt it was dishonorable of him to present his alibi, and presumably he had no other evidence to present.
Evidently the jury was what we Yanks (and maybe you Aussies also) call a "hanging jury," who was determined to convict him and just ignored the opportunity for finding a reasonable doubt. But once the verdict was in, there was nothing he could do about it (perhaps there were grounds for appeal, but -- the lawyers will have to correct me on this if I'm wrong -- he couldn't appeal just because he disagreed with the verdict. If that were possible, every convicted defendant would appeal (at least the ones who could afford to.) If the *judge,* for example, had somehow egregiously ignored the presumption of innocence in charging the jury, there might be a ground for appeal, I guess.
The way you talk about the US legal system only indicates to me (a) the dangers of being self-taught in the law (as you claim to have been), (b) your ignorance of the US (which you show nearly every time you post), and (c) your irrational hatred of the US (which you are entitled to if you want it, but you ought to realize that it doesn't impress us Yanks in the slightest.)
Jon Johanning Philadelphia, PA