Is there something in what WD said that suggests he is opposed to the presumption of innocence and the government's high burden of proof, or are you just engaging in generic lawyer bashing? Actually it is the populace The "we" you speak for, that poll after poll show does not believes that these are good things. Lawyers almost universally do. It's part of the indoctrination. Criminal defense like me of course approve this rule, as do civil libertarian lawyers of all stripes, including many prosecutors.
--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> Mr. WD writes:
>
> > A subsequent acquital does not mean the defendant
> was innocent -- it
> > means the state couldn't prove the defendant's
> guilt beyond a
> > reasonable doubt. That's why juries find people
> "not guilty" instead
> > of "innocent."
>
> Geeze, you lawyers. You say stuff like that as
> though it's wrong.
>
> Yes, it's very important to remember that the two
> sides of the coin are
> guilty and not guilty. The onus is absolutely upon
> the state to prove
> guilt.
>
> We like it that way, thanks. Maybe you don't.
>
> /jordan
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/