NationStates Jolt Archive

I know we're not all lawyers, but I see this come up a lot.

I've seen several posters suggest that presumption of innocence applies in a civil trial.

I've seen others claim that it applies to everyone involved in a trial, rather than to the accused.

I've seen it described that it applies to assuming that people involved didn't make any mistakes.

Lawyer or not, it seems to be me sort of basic to our understanding of our justice system in the US. We are all potential jurors and I fear the day I'm in a jury box with some of these people.

Anyone want to explain their understanding of the presumption of innocence. Also, I'm opening this up to anything else you might want to understand about the justice system. Broad topic.

I've seen several posters suggest that presumption of innocence applies in a civil trial.

I did assume that actually. Don't think I've ever posted on the basis of it though.

EDIT: That was a question I guess.

The presumption of innocence in a civil trial means that the person bringing the suit has to prove their case. If they are unable to do so, the presumption of innocence means the plaintiff loses their case. If there was no presumption of innocence, the defendant would have to prove they aren't at fault and if they're unable to do so, they'd have to pay (or face some other penalty).

As far as I understand it, it means that the accused is not assumed to be guilty just because he was accused. An accusation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true (in a criminal case) for guilt to apply.

In civil law, I believe the burden of proof is much lighter than in criminal law, so I don't know who has to prove what in lawsuits.

Outside of the legal system, the "presumption of innocence" doesn't mean much beyond the general principle of not assuming without any foundation that the other person screwed up or screwed you over, but that would be more of a personal ethic or philosophy or something. Not a ruling standard.

As far as I understand it, it means that the accused is not assumed to be guilty just because he was accused. An accusation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true (in a criminal case) for guilt to apply.

In civil law, I believe the burden of proof is much lighter than in criminal law, so I don't know who has to prove what in lawsuits.

Outside of the legal system, the "presumption of innocence" doesn't mean much beyond the general principle of not assuming without any foundation that the other person screwed up or screwed you over, but that would be more of a personal ethic or philosophy or something. Not a ruling standard.

Yes, and innocent and guilty doesn't apply to civil trials. The presumption of innocence wouldn't make any sense.

So wait, does Presumption of Innocence apply to someone who might have committed a crime for which you are now being tried (during the course of your trial)?

I didn't want to derail the old thread by asking, but I'm not really sure about the answer to this one.

I can't stick around to delight in this...but perhaps you should point out more clearly for the plebs here the difference between a civil suit and a criminal trial. An amazing amount of people on NSG don't seem to get that there is any difference.

Oh...and enjoy. *shudders*

I'll give you an example. Let's say I'm being tried for murder. My defense is presenting alternate subjects.

We'll use our names.

The evidence suggests that only two people, Deus and I were in her apartment during the period when she was murdered. I suggest that Deus might have done it. My attorney shows how it's reasonable to suspect as much. Now, if he is assumed to be innocent then I'd have to prove him guilty in order for me to be considered innocent. I don't have to do that. I can simply use him to cast doubt, provided it's reasonable.

I know there are some lawyers cringing at this explanation because it's too simple, but I'm doing my best.

I can't stick around to delight in this...but perhaps you should point out more clearly for the plebs here the difference between a civil suit and a criminal trial. An amazing amount of people on NSG don't seem to get that there is any difference.

Oh...and enjoy. *shudders*

Yes, that problem comes up so much. It was part of why I brought this up. I was actually thinking of you. Can't you offer up some explanation of the concepts, because I don't think I'm explaining very well. I was just talking about this on IM with NA.

Think about it. A lot of these are Americans. They end up on juries. Isn't that scary?

I'll give you an example. Let's say I'm being tried for murder. My defense is presenting alternate subjects.

We'll use our names.

The evidence suggests that only two people, Deus and I were in her apartment during the period when she was murdered. I suggest that Deus might have done it. My attorney shows how it's reasonable to suspect as much. Now, if he is assumed to be innocent then I'd have to prove him guilty in order for me to be considered innocent. I don't have to do that. I can simply use him to cast doubt, provided it's reasonable.

I know there are some lawyers cringing at this explanation because it's too simple, but I'm doing my best.
I don't think you would have to accuse Deus of actually doing anything at all in order to create reasonable doubt as to your guilt. You could just prove that he was there, and thus that you were not the only person with opportunity to kill her, and that would increase the burden on the prosecution to prove it was you and no one else.

As long as Deus is not actually accused of the crime, his presumed innocence will not come into play. What I mean is, YOU wouldn't have to prove anything at all about him, no matter what you say, really. The only accusations that matter legally are the prosecutor's, and it will be up to him/her to prove them against his presumed innocence.

EDIT: I mean, I'm thinking that you could argue that you're innocent because Deus did it, and that would not amount to an accusation that would require you to get around his presumption of innocence, since your accusation does not put him in any legal jeopardy. EDIT AGAIN: It only matters if the prosecutor accuses him.

And that used up the last of today's brain cells. G'night. :)

The presumption of innocence in a civil trial means that the person bringing the suit has to prove their case. If they are unable to do so, the presumption of innocence means the plaintiff loses their case. If there was no presumption of innocence, the defendant would have to prove they aren't at fault and if they're unable to do so, they'd have to pay (or face some other penalty).

that http://img84.echo.cx/img84/4866/agreed8mv.gif

So wait, does Presumption of Innocence apply to someone who might have committed a crime for which you are now being tried (during the course of your trial)?

I didn't want to derail the old thread by asking, but I'm not really sure about the answer to this one.

if you are charged with a crime you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

meaning that the state is the one with the burden to prove its case. all the accused has to do is show that the state hasnt proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. they dont have to prove they are innocent.

civil cases are not about crime so its different. the plaintif has to prove that he has been wronged by the defendant with a preponderance of the evidence--more likely than not to be true. losing a civil case doesnt get you tossed into jail.

if what you asked was about some 3 person who isnt charged with the crime being tried but might still be guilty, ...well, if they thought he was guilty he'd be charged, eh? he cant be made to testify against himself. the guy on trial can try to establish reasonable doubt by casting it in the 3 guys direction which might end up with 3rd guy being charged and tried. his presumption of innocence comes in when and if he is on trial.

I don't think you would have to accuse Deus of actually doing anything at all in order to create reasonable doubt as to your guilt. You could just prove that he was there, and thus that you were not the only person with opportunity to kill her, and that would increase the burden on the prosecution to prove it was you and no one else.

As long as Deus is not actually accused of the crime, his presumed innocence will not come into play in creating doubt as to your guilt.

The point would be that we simply assume he is innocent and the prosecution provides no evidence against him, thus he isn't a suspect.

The fact is that if it's reasonably possible he could have done it, they have to PROVE him innocent in order to PROVE me guilty.

The word "guilt" should never be used in the context of civil law. The civil law system knows no such animal as "guilt" or "innocence".

The word "guilt" should never be used in the context of civil law. The civil law system knows no such animal as "guilt" or "innocence".

And thus "presumption of innocence" regarding it is nonsensical.

I know we're not all lawyers, but I see this come up a lot.

I've seen several posters suggest that presumption of innocence applies in a civil trial.

I've seen others claim that it applies to everyone involved in a trial, rather than to the accused.

I've seen it described that it applies to assuming that people involved didn't make any mistakes.

Lawyer or not, it seems to be me sort of basic to our understanding of our justice system in the US. We are all potential jurors and I fear the day I'm in a jury box with some of these people.

Anyone want to explain their understanding of the presumption of innocence. Also, I'm opening this up to anything else you might want to understand about the justice system. Broad topic.

The presumption of innocence on a civil trial: The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

The presumption of innocence on a civil trial: The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

A civil trial and a criminal trial are not the same thing. Your link is talking about a criminal offense.

Somewhere Neesika just shuddered.

The point would be that we simply assume he is innocent and the prosecution provides no evidence against him, thus he isn't a suspect.

The fact is that if it's reasonably possible he could have done it, they have to PROVE him innocent in order to PROVE me guilty.

No, I don't think they do, but to explain why I need sleep.

Yes, and innocent and guilty doesn't apply to civil trials. The presumption of innocence wouldn't make any sense.

There is however still burdens of proof. There are also often burden shifts and the like, something that doesn't really exist in criminal law, where the burden is almost always on the state.

A civil trial and a criminal trial are not the same thing. Your link is talking about a criminal offense.

Somewhere Neesika just shuddered.

Neesika nothing, I saw that and cringed. I especially found funny the "Everyone charged with a criminal offence" bit.

I have several questions.

1) where does Presumption of innocence support this idea?
You don't get to say "even if it was an officer serving a warrant". You don't get to say "well, then why didn't he do this or do that".

2) where does it say that Presumption of innocence relates to citizens talking about a case (tho they have NO TIES to the case itself) on the internet?

3) where does it state that Presumption of Innocence extends PAST the trial where a verdict and sentencing were rendered?

No, I don't think they do, but to explain why I need sleep.

Well it depends on how literal you want to use the term "prove".

Let's say you're charged with a crime. Your defense is that I, also could have committed the crime. As long as your defense can show that it was reasonably possible for me, not you to have committed the crime, there is reasonable doubt as to your guilt.

If I could have done it, that means it's not proven that you did do it. So for the prosecution to convict me they have to "prove" I didn't do it. Not prove in a literal sense, as I'm not on trial nor a party to any of this, but "prove" in the general sense, demonstrate that there's no reasonable chance that I, not you, committed the crime, and that the only reasonable explanation is that it was you.

As I understand the system in Australia, presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt apply only to criminal law. In civil law niether of these are prerequisites.

There is however still burdens of proof. There are also often burden shifts and the like, something that doesn't really exist in criminal law, where the burden is almost always on the state.

Oh, there's another good bit to bring up. Explain when the burden of proof falls on the defense.

the burden of proof falls on the defense when they are claiming innocence due to mental disease or defect.

I have several questions.

1) where does Presumption of innocence support this idea?

2) where does it say that Presumption of innocence relates to citizens talking about a case (tho they have NO TIES to the case itself) on the internet?

3) where does it state that Presumption of Innocence extends PAST the trial where a verdict and sentencing were rendered?

This is hijack. Please don't reply to this.

Oh, there's another good bit to bring up. Explain when the burden of proof falls on the defense.

it's called affirmative defenses. Not "I didn't do it and you have to prove I did" but rather an affirmative defense is "OK, I did it, BUT you can't convict me because ..."

Which typically falls into three catagories:

1) the "insanity" defense

2) self-defense

3) statute of limitations

In an affirmative defense, the party admits to committing the actions, but contends that he shouldn't be convicted, because of various factors (mental disease, self defense, statute of limitations has passed etc). In those circumstances it is the defense's obligation to prove that the condition would prevent him from going to jail is true. THe prosecution has no burden in that instance, as in order ot assert an affirmative defense, it's presumed admission that you actually did it.

{{Globalize/North America}}

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:1EiLfxDdlRnb8M:http://www.juliantrubin.com/encyclopedia/earthsciences/hurricane_files/35px-Nuvola_apps_browser.png This thread deals primarily with North America and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Please improve this thread and discuss the issue from different perspectives.


:p

the burden of proof falls on the defense when they are claiming innocence due to mental disease or defect.

well, any 'affirmative defense" of which the "insanity" (not guilty due to mental disease or defect) is one of, but there are others (self defense, necessity, statute of limitations etc).

Also the claim is "not guilty" due to those reasons, not "innocent"

wait, Jocabia, were you asking when burden falls on defense in a criminal trial, or civil one? It rarely falls on the defense in a criminal trial, and only during an assertion of an affirmative defense.

Civil trial is a different animal.

The word "guilt" should never be used in the context of civil law. The civil law system knows no such animal as "guilt" or "innocence".So then the civil system would use "liable" separately from "guilt"?

well, any 'affirmative defense" of which the "insanity" (not guilty due to mental disease or defect) is one of, but there are others (self defense, necessity, statute of limitations etc).

Also the claim is "not guilty" due to those reasons, not "innocent"

i figured there were more but thats the only one i knew.

are there times when a person has been charged and brought to trial where the statute of limitations has actually passed?

wait, Jocabia, were you asking when burden falls on defense in a criminal trial, or civil one? It rarely falls on the defense in a criminal trial, and only during an assertion of an affirmative defense.

Civil trial is a different animal.

I was sticking to criminal, because that's what you were mentioning. Specifically when the burden of proof falls.

I have a question on self-defense. That's nuanced too, yes? Because if I shoot a guy in my home, they have to demonstrate it wasn't self-defense, provided the law allows me to do so, yes?

So then the civil system would use "liable" separately from "guilt"?

Presumption of innocence - rather: presumption of being not guilty - is corner stone of every civilized legal system around the world.

A wiki quote:
With respect to criminal procedure, certain civil law systems are based upon a variant of the inquisitorial system rather than the adversarial system. In common law countries, this kind of judicial organization is sometimes criticized as lacking a presumption of innocence. Most European countries, however, are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 guarantees "the right to a fair trial" and the presumption of innocence. The Convention is ratified by all the members and as such part of their national legislation

The difference lies in dealing with facts instead of having to convince a jury of a status of being guilty: More unbiased inquisition rather than a popularity contest.

are there times when a person has been charged and brought to trial where the statute of limitations has actually passed?

It doesn't typically happen but it has happened. Usually when there's an issue as to when the crime actually occured.

I have a question on self-defense. That's nuanced too, yes? Because if I shoot a guy in my home, they have to demonstrate it wasn't self-defense, provided the law allows me to do so, yes?

That is entirely a matter of how the self-defense statute is worded. Some make it an issue of the state, have to prove that you did not reasonably believe it necessary. In others it is an affirmative defense, have to demonstrate that you reasonably believed your actions to be necessary.

I was sticking to criminal, because that's what you were mentioning. Specifically when the burden of proof falls.

I have a question on self-defense. That's nuanced too, yes? Because if I shoot a guy in my home, they have to demonstrate it wasn't self-defense, provided the law allows me to do so, yes?

In the Us it will almost always be ruled self defense on your property unless he was a invited guest. To many ifs that can be throw up... and the prosecution would have to either improve intent of the home owner or prove that the person who got shot's intent was purely not violent.
Since it is rare that these things be proven especially at night most DAs don't even file charges on shootings where the person who broke in got shot..

Presumption of innocence - rather: presumption of being not guilty - is corner stone of every civilized legal system around the world.

A wiki quote:
With respect to criminal procedure, certain civil law systems are based upon a variant of the inquisitorial system rather than the adversarial system. In common law countries, this kind of judicial organization is sometimes criticized as lacking a presumption of innocence. Most European countries, however, are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 guarantees "the right to a fair trial" and the presumption of innocence. The Convention is ratified by all the members and as such part of their national legislation

The difference lies in dealing with facts instead of having to convince a jury of a status of being guilty: More unbiased inquisition rather than a popularity contest.

you're using "civil law" in a different sense. One of the most commons issues for first year law students is the fact that "civil law" has two seperate and entirely different meanings.

For shits and giggles, we should probably also explain a plee of "Nolo contendere".


Correct me if Im wrong, but as far as I understand it is is basically neither agreeing with nor contesting the charges usually in a criminal trial. The point is so your plea cannot later be used against you in a civil suit (like if the family of the victim sued you after your criminal trial).

Where does the burden of proof fall in a plea of "Nolo contendere"? Id imagine it was still the prosecution.

The point would be that we simply assume he is innocent and the prosecution provides no evidence against him, thus he isn't a suspect.

The fact is that if it's reasonably possible he could have done it, they have to PROVE him innocent in order to PROVE me guilty.

You mean, if they have no other way of proving you guilty, right?

You aren't saying that the alternative suspect has to be proved innocent, surely, but merely not be a source of reasonable doubt on your own guilt. Have I got that?

Where does the burden of proof fall in a plea of "Nolo contendere"? Id imagine it was still the prosecution.

There is no burden for a nolo contedere plea. It's treated as if you plead guilty. It literally means "I do not wish to contest", and if you choose not to contest, you waive your right to a trial, and go straight on to sentencing.

This is hijack. Please don't reply to this.

is it or is it not a question of Presumption of Innocence?

Does those questions touch upon when presumption of innocence can and has to be applied?

does it not ask who are required to act within the presumption of innocence?

how is that hijacking a thread about how Presumption of innocence works?

There is no burden for a nolo contedere plea. It's treated as if you plead guilty. It literally means "I do not wish to contest", and if you choose not to contest, you waive your right to a trial, and go straight on to sentencing.

Yeah, after I thought about it that makes more sense. So essentially its basically pleading guilty, but it means that your plea cannot be used against you in an ensuing civil suit, right?


And of course I am asking just in the most general basic sense.

Yeah, after I thought about it that makes more sense. So essentially its basically pleading guilty, but it means that your plea cannot be used against you in an ensuing civil suit, right?


And of course I am asking just in the most general basic sense.

it means that your plea can not be used as an exception to the hearsay rule as an admission.

Which basically means, yes, that's pretty much right.

it means that your plea can not be used as an exception to the hearsay rule as an admission.

Which basically means, yes, that's pretty much right.

All right. Thats bascially what I thought (Im trying not to get too technical here so everyone else can get the gist and so you dont have to play law professor).


My high jack ends now.*bows*

is it or is it not a question of Presumption of Innocence?

Does those questions touch upon when presumption of innocence can and has to be applied?

does it not ask who are required to act within the presumption of innocence?

how is that hijacking a thread about how Presumption of innocence works?

If you wish to ask the question, don't mention the case. I don't want to discuss the case in this thread.

If a case were being discussed and someone replied to one of your posts where I was discussing evidence that could be used in a trial, would it be relevant to bring up that the person who was being tried has the presumption of innocent?

See, in your post, you were talking about how he should have collected evidence to show he was innocent by dialing 911. I pointed out he doesn't need to, because he has the presumption of innocence.

That is entirely a matter of how the self-defense statute is worded. Some make it an issue of the state, have to prove that you did not reasonably believe it necessary. In others it is an affirmative defense, have to demonstrate that you reasonably believed your actions to be necessary.

I'm not going to get into the specific case. But assume the person in your home is an officer. The state's law says that you intentionally and willfully killed a Police officer. Meaning, they'd have to demonstrate that you knew it was an officer. So even in claiming self-defense, they'd still have a burden, no?

If you wish to ask the question, don't mention the case. I don't want to discuss the case in this thread. and I'm not, I'm asking for answers on those points. I even removed the links to not referre people there.

If a case were being discussed and someone replied to one of your posts where I was discussing evidence that could be used in a trial, would it be relevant to bring up that the person who was being tried has the presumption of innocent?

See, in your post, you were talking about how he should have collected evidence to show he was innocent by dialing 911. I pointed out he doesn't need to, because he has the presumption of innocence. now who (between you and I) is discussing the case and Hijacking?

Neo, could YOU answer those questions I posted without referencing the thread or the case?

Please use the quote within the question as a random generic example.

I'm not going to get into the specific case. But assume the person in your home is an officer. The state's law says that you intentionally and willfully killed a Police officer. Meaning, they'd have to demonstrate that you knew it was an officer. So even in claiming self-defense, they'd still have a burden, no?

well, that sentence is poorly phrased. Do you mean knowingly and willfully killing someone who was a police officer, or knowingly and willfully killing someone known to you to be a police officer?

Neo, could YOU answer those questions I posted without referencing the thread or the case?


I'm fairly certain you know the answer already, and as such I'm not really sure it's worth my time explaining what you already know.

well, that sentence is poorly phrased. Do you mean knowingly and willfully killing someone who was a police officer, or knowingly and willfully killing someone known to you to be a police officer?

The specific law requires that you knowingly murdered an officer. In other words, not knowingly killed someone, but murdered someone you knew was an officer.

The specific law requires that you knowingly murdered an officer. In other words, not knowingly killed someone, but murdered someone you knew was an officer.

then yes they'd have to demonstrate you knew he was an officer, but that particular fact would not need to be admitted to assert an affirmative claim of self defense as it's irrelevant to the claim of self defense

All right. Thats bascially what I thought (Im trying not to get too technical here so everyone else can get the gist and so you dont have to play law professor).


My high jack ends now.*bows*

No, you are on topic. It's discussing a layman's legal understanding. All of us are potential jurors, and while we needn't get to deep into the rules of a courtroom, we should understand the burden of proof of a trial.

I'm fairly certain you know the answer already, and as such I'm not really sure it's worth my time explaining what you already know.

ok then are these correct assumptions on my part concering my questions and the Presumption of Innocence?

1)where does Presumption of innocence support this idea?
You don't get to say "even if it was an officer serving a warrant". You don't get to say "well, then why didn't he do this or do that".
this only applies to juries who have to consider only what's presented by the prosecution and defense. Visitors to the trial, and anyone else not connected with the trial is exempt from such restriction.

2) where does it say that Presumption of innocence relates to citizens talking about a case (tho they have NO TIES to the case itself) on the internet?
There is no such rule or regulation that applies to anyone NOT connected with the trial. however, the jury has to make sure that they don't overhear or come across any information or opinon NOT presented in the trial .

3) where does it state that Presumption of Innocence extends PAST the trial where a verdict and sentencing were rendered?
there is no such ruling. however under appeals the Judge has to presume innocence of the defendant to give an impartial review of the proceedings.

are these correct?

No, you are on topic. It's discussing a layman's legal understanding. All of us are potential jurors, and while we needn't get to deep into the rules of a courtroom, we should understand the burden of proof of a trial.

actually an average juror would never encounter a nolo contendre plea as in a criminal case, that kind of plea skips right over the jury, and the only relevance it would have in a civil trial would be if whether defendant's claims meet an exception to the hearsay rule, which would be deal wtih in a pretrial motion in limine.

ok then are these correct assumptions on my part concering my questions and the Presumption of Innocence?

1)where does Presumption of innocence support this idea?

this only applies to juries who have to consider only what's presented by the prosecution and defense. Visitors to the trial, and anyone else not connected with the trial is exempt from such restriction.

2) where does it say that Presumption of innocence relates to citizens talking about a case (tho they have NO TIES to the case itself) on the internet?
There is no such rule or regulation that applies to anyone NOT connected with the trial. however, the jury has to make sure that they don't overhear or come across any information or opinon NOT presented in the trial .

3) where does it state that Presumption of Innocence extends PAST the trial where a verdict and sentencing were rendered?
there is no such ruling. however under appeals the Judge has to presume innocence of the defendant to give an impartial review of the proceedings.

are these correct?

Dammit, JuNii. Do not hijack my thread. We were talking about a trial, and applied the principle to the defendent and your claims about how he should have collected evidence. Now, if NA would like to get into the specifics, he's welcome to join us in THAT thread.

However, HERE we are talking about criminal trials. Not your rather poor understanding of an argument from another thread.

Ha ha, an argument between Junii and Jocabia is like the unstoppable force meeting the unmovable object - I doubt either will give.

Well I'm going to skip over the "how does it relate to those not part of a trial" bit as it is a legal construct for those on trial, and has no relationship to those who are not charged, or part of the jury. with that said:



3) where does it state that Presumption of Innocence extends PAST the trial where a verdict and sentencing were rendered?
there is no such ruling. however under appeals the Judge has to presume innocence of the defendant to give an impartial review of the proceedings.

are these correct?


Not exactly. "guilt" and "innocence" are typically not matters for an appeal. In an appeal, the matter of guilt is considered settled, and the judge doesn't presume any innocence. What the judge does is review the case to determine if there was any error in procedure, interpretation, or constitutionality. That's pretty much it. The issue of appeal is generally whether the law was applied correctly, whether the law was constitutional, and whether the court followed proper procedure.

At least in the united states, it almost never happens that someone is found not guilty on appeal. If procedure was followed, the law was constitutional, and everything was done properly, It's exceedingly rare that an appeals court overturns a jury verdict. Most of the time what happens is, if a ruling is not upheld, then it's sent back for retrail, based on some kind of error by the lower court (unless it was some kind of error in which jeopardy would attach).

But generally there is no presumption of innocence at an appeal.

Ha ha, an argument between Junii and Jocabia is like the unstoppable force meeting the unmovable object - I doubt either will give.

I'm starting to get a bit frustrated. Read the last post in the other thread. It's so petty and absurd, that I was reasonable enough not to continue it. Now he's brought it to this thread AND moderation. It's just sad.

I respectfully request that people not allow this thread to degrade into that level of nonsense. I really do care about this topic, and NA and several others are bringing up very interesting information.

Well I'm going to skip over the "how does it relate to those not part of a trial" bit as it is a legal construct for those on trial, and has no relationship to those who are not charged, or part of the jury. with that said:




Not exactly. "guilt" and "innocence" are typically not matters for an appeal. In an appeal, the matter of guilt is considered settled, and the judge doesn't presume any innocence. What the judge does is review the case to determine if there was any error in procedure, interpretation, or constitutionality. That's pretty much it. The issue of appeal is generally whether the law was applied correctly, whether the law was constitutional, and whether the court followed proper procedure.

At least in the united states, it almost never happens that someone is found not guilty on appeal. If procedure was followed, the law was constitutional, and everything was done properly, It's exceedingly rare that an appeals court overturns a jury verdict. Most of the time what happens is, if a ruling is not upheld, then it's sent back for retrail, based on some kind of error by the lower court (unless it was some kind of error in which jeopardy would attach).

But generally there is no presumption of innocence at an appeal.

A violation of the defendent's rights would be grounds for a retrial, no?

A violation of the defendent's rights would be grounds for a retrial, no?

As far as I understand it. But I doubt that there would be much of that going on, as violations of such would usually be evidence seized wrongfully, in which case a competent defense would get said evidene tossed out before a trial even began. But I got a year or two till Ill be in law school, so correct me if Im wrong (like you need permission).


As an aside, Neo what kind of lawyer are you? What kind of law do you practice? Always wondered this and this just seems like a relevent time to ask.

A violation of the defendent's rights would be grounds for a retrial, no?

well yes, that would be a type of procedural problem I mentioned. But that's a ruling that court failed to follow procedure, not any finding of guilt or innocence by an appeals court. As I said, for an appeals court to actually declare someone not guilty is extremely rare.

As far as I understand it. But I doubt that there would be much of that going on, as violations of such would usually be evidence seized wrongfully, in which case a competent defense would get said evidene tossed out before a trial even began. But I got a few more years till Ill be in law school, so correct me if Im wrong (like you need permission).


As an aside, Neo what kind of lawyer are you? What kind of law do you practice? Always wondered this and this just seems like a relevent time to ask.

You addressed your own point. "a competent defense". I make no assumption of a competent defense. Also, there are all kinds of other rights you're ignoring. For example, if I wasn't permitted to contribute to my own defense.

As an aside, Neo what kind of lawyer are you? What kind of law do you practice? Always wondered this and this just seems like a relevent time to ask.

In general I'm a civil transaction specialist, which means I mainly deal with matters of securities, securities and banking regulations, secured transactions, a little bit of tax, and corporate for profit and not for profit regulations.

I don't do criminal work and I rarely do trial matters, and never as first chair. My work in trials is usually as a prep specialist, which means I advise and educate the trial attorneys on the particular issues of law regarding that issue. For example, in a lawsuit involving securities regulation I would be the one who would advise and educate the trial attorney on the intricacies of the relevant securities statutes.

As an aside, Neo what kind of lawyer are you? What kind of law do you practice? Always wondered this and this just seems like a relevent time to ask.
Oh, that was directed at Neo

As far as I understand it. But I doubt that there would be much of that going on, as violations of such would usually be evidence seized wrongfully, in which case a competent defense would get said evidene tossed out before a trial even began. But I got a year or two till Ill be in law school, so correct me if Im wrong (like you need permission).

Only if the matter in which the evidence was seized wrongfully fell into a clearly deliniated improper manner. There's a lot of grey in constitutional interpretation, and an appelas court can very well reasonably disagree with a trial court on what constituted an unconstitutional seizure.

[snipped] please don't. I would like to honor Jocabia's wishes and keep this on topic.

Well I'm going to skip over the "how does it relate to those not part of a trial" bit as it is a legal construct for those on trial, and has no relationship to those who are not charged, or part of the jury. with that said:


Not exactly. "guilt" and "innocence" are typically not matters for an appeal. In an appeal, the matter of guilt is considered settled, and the judge doesn't presume any innocence. What the judge does is review the case to determine if there was any error in procedure, interpretation, or constitutionality. That's pretty much it. The issue of appeal is generally whether the law was applied correctly, whether the law was constitutional, and whether the court followed proper procedure.

At least in the united states, it almost never happens that someone is found not guilty on appeal. If procedure was followed, the law was constitutional, and everything was done properly, It's exceedingly rare that an appeals court overturns a jury verdict. Most of the time what happens is, if a ruling is not upheld, then it's sent back for retrail, based on some kind of error by the lower court (unless it was some kind of error in which jeopardy would attach).

But generally there is no presumption of innocence at an appeal.
ah, my mistake, thanks.

well yes, that would be a type of procedural problem I mentioned. But that's a ruling that court failed to follow procedure, not any finding of guilt or innocence by an appeals court. As I said, for an appeals court to actually declare someone not guilty is extremely rare.

Does Double Jepordy come into application in cases of a trial being overturned via Procedural Problems?

In general I'm a civil transaction specialist, which means I mainly deal with matters of securities, securities and banking regulations, secured transactions, a little bit of tax, and corporate for profit and not for profit regulations.

I don't do criminal work and I rarely do trial matters, and never as first chair. My work in trials is usually as a prep specialist, which means I advise and educate the trial attorneys on the particular issues of law regarding that issue. For example, in a lawsuit involving securities regulation I would be the one who would advise and educate the trial attorney on the intricacies of the relevant securities statutes.

Interesting. To be honost, I had always pegged you as something of an ACLU type attorny.

Only if the matter in which the evidence was seized wrongfully fell into a clearly deliniated improper manner. There's a lot of grey in constitutional interpretation, and an appelas court can very well reasonably disagree with a trial court on what constituted an unconstitutional seizure.

All righty then, thanks for the correction.

please don't. I would like to honor Jocabia's wishes and keep this on topic.

Thank you very much. I'm not trying to be jerk, but I think you'd agree that the thread got silly. And whether you agree or not, the questions you brought are not reflective of my point you tried to quote. However, in order to get into that, we'd have to quote all kinds of posts and make this thread as petty as that one. I'm simply trying to make this thread more broadly relevant and more interesting.

I appreciate your help with that.

Does Double Jepordy come into application in cases of a trial being overturned via Procedural Problems?

generally, no. Double Jeopardy deals with when a final adjudication has been reached. Because the finding of the first trial has been invalidated in the ordering of a retrial, there is no longer any final adjudication.

Interesting. To be honost, I had always pegged you as something of an ACLU type attorny.

I am a proud member of the ACLU, as well as the National Lawyers Guild (an organization with a similar aim and purpose) and contribute a lot of aid both through legal work and financial contributions to both organizations, but I am not, by trade, a civil rights attorney, but it is a professional interest of mine.

I should also note that I do have two years of experience in the federal court system as a clerk first to a district judge, and then as clerk for the first circuit court of appeals, so have experience in matters in that regard.

I am a proud member of the ACLU, as well as the National Lawyers Guild (an organization with a similar aim and purpose) and contribute a lot of aid both through legal work and financial contributions to both organizations, but I am not, by trade, a civil rights attorney, but it is a professional interest of mine.

This does not suprise me;)

Thank you very much. I'm not trying to be jerk, but I think you'd agree that the thread got silly. And whether you agree or not, the questions you brought are not reflective of my point you tried to quote. However, in order to get into that, we'd have to quote all kinds of posts and make this thread as petty as that one. I'm simply trying to make this thread more broadly relevant and more interesting.

I appreciate your help with that.

[small hijack] believe it or not Jocabia. I leave whatever goes on in a thread in that thread. I posted those questions because I honestly wanted to know. what I quoted in that question did sound rather... outlandish. but that doesn't mean it's not possible. I would rather ask the stupid question than not. ;)

oh and I did mean it. Like Vegas, What goes on in a thread, stays in that thread (for me anyway). :cool: [/small threadjack]

I am a proud member of the ACLU, as well as the National Lawyers Guild (an organization with a similar aim and purpose) and contribute a lot of aid both through legal work and financial contributions to both organizations, but I am not, by trade, a civil rights attorney, but it is a professional interest of mine.

I should also note that I do have two years of experience in the federal court system as a clerk first to a district judge, and then as clerk for the first circuit court of appeals, so have experience in matters in that regard.

not a legal question, but one I hope will be answered.

So are you a lawyer? it kinda sound like you have court experience but not as an attorney... :confused:

So are you a lawyer? it kinda sound like you have court experience but not as an attorney... :confused:

Of course. A "law clerk" for a judge is typically a "first out of law school job". They are the legal aids for the judge, who make recommendations, draft opinions, and give their interpretations of how he/she should rule. THe judge is of course the final arbiter, but law clerks are not what you would commonly associate with the term "clerk". Law clerks are one year positions, running typically from september to september

I was a law clerk when I finished college, after taking the bar. After completing my position as a clerk for a district court judge I applied for, and got accepted, as a clerk for the ifrst circuit court of appeals.

Incidentally and totally off topic, but I made it to the first round of interviews, but was not given a call back, for a place as clerk for the US Supreme Court.

Law clerks are lawyers, typically right out of lawschool

Incidentally and totally off topic, but I made it to the first round of interviews, but was not given a call back, for a place as clerk for the US Supreme Court.

Probably for the best. I cant imagine you and Scalia getting along;)

Probably for the best. I cant imagine you and Scalia getting along;)

it wasn't for scalia :p

it wasn't for scalia :p

Oh, I thought you meant for the supreme court as a whole, not just a specific judge. Im still learning how this stuff works.


Haha. Should have figured that out though. I cant imagine you applying to work with Scalia in any field other then boxing;)

So what are some things that would likely disqualify you from being on a jury?

(Yes, I know it's a complicated question. I did that on purpose.)

So what are some things that would likely disqualify you from being on a jury?

(Yes, I know it's a complicated question. I did that on purpose.)

Having any relation to either party of any kind.

Having a potential bias for a certian type of person/occupation (my aunt was recently released from jury duty because she was married to a cop, and my dad was disqualified from a case involving a domestic abuse because he stated he would never approve of hitting ones wife or kids under any circumtances).

Not being willing to apply the maximum sentence or force of the law (such as being morally opposed to sentencing someone to death would probably disqualify you from serving on a jury where the death sentence was being sought).


These are just what spring to mind.

A civil trial and a criminal trial are not the same thing. Your link is talking about a criminal offense.

Somewhere Neesika just shuddered.

Oops, my bad. I was just posting a definition of presumption of innocence.

So what are some things that would likely disqualify you from being on a jury?

(Yes, I know it's a complicated question. I did that on purpose.)

I take these from the connecticut website:

You cannot speak or understand English.

You cannot serve because of a physical or medical disability (You must provide a letter from your doctor).

You are 70 years old or older and do not want to serve.

You already spent a day serving jury duty in state court during the three previous years OR you are scheduled to serve in the near future.

You have been convicted of a felony during the past seven years OR you are a defendant in a felony case now.

You are in jail or prison.

You are a State Senator or Representative and the legislature is in session.

You are a judge of the Superior Court, Appellate Court or Supreme Court, you are a judge of probate or you are a federal court judge.

You are not a citizen of the United States.

This will get you disqualified from a jury in general. In addition certain things might get you disqualified from one jury, but not another. FOr instance...association with one of the attorneys or one of the parties, bias against the race, religion, ethnicity of one of the parties, experience as a plaintiff or defendant in a similar case, hardship serving on a jury for the expected length of time, things like that.

Oh, I thought you meant for the supreme court as a whole, not just a specific judge. Im still learning how this stuff works.


Each supreme court justice actually has a fairly large pool of clerks

You are in jail or prison.


This one made me laugh.

I remember, and I don't know from where, a guy who was called for duty - and I wonder if, like the UK, if you're called you have to attend unless you have reasonable grounds for excusing yourself - and when the question was asked as to whether there was any reason a juror might not be able to provide impartial judgement he put up his hand and said:

'I hate black people'.

The had to let him go even though he was just doing it to get out of jury duty. I wondered as to whether he could be held in contempt of court or whether it was a loophole that one could exploit.

I respectfully request that people not allow this thread to degrade into that level of nonsense. I really do care about this topic, and NA and several others are bringing up very interesting information.

I still haven't got clear why there is not something LIKE a presumption of innocence in a civil case.

"The standard of proof is lower" I hear, but perhaps someone could explain that in more detail.

They had to let him go even though he was just doing it to get out of jury duty. I wondered as to whether he could be held in contempt of court or whether it was a loophole that one could exploit.

Only if they knew and could somehow prove he was lying. At least Im pretty sure.

I still haven't got clear why there is not something LIKE a presumption of innocence in a civil case.

"The standard of proof is lower" I hear, but perhaps someone could explain that in more detail.

there is, if we substitute "liable" for "innocence". You can't just sue someone saying "so he was negligent and it hurt me" and expect to win. Still need to prove your case.

The problem is the burden switches in civil cases, often back and forth, depending on the case, what issues are involved etc. So there's no set presumption that stays there the entire time. Rather the burden begins with the plaintiff, but can shift.

Of course. A "law clerk" for a judge is typically a "first out of law school job". They are the legal aids for the judge, who make recommendations, draft opinions, and give their interpretations of how he/she should rule. THe judge is of course the final arbiter, but law clerks are not what you would commonly associate with the term "clerk". Law clerks are one year positions, running typically from september to september

I was a law clerk when I finished college, after taking the bar. After completing my position as a clerk for a district court judge I applied for, and got accepted, as a clerk for the ifrst circuit court of appeals.

Incidentally and totally off topic, but I made it to the first round of interviews, but was not given a call back, for a place as clerk for the US Supreme Court.

Law clerks are lawyers, typically right out of lawschool
ah, thanks.

I take these from the connecticut website:



This will get you disqualified from a jury in general. In addition certain things might get you disqualified from one jury, but not another. FOr instance...association with one of the attorneys or one of the parties, bias against the race, religion, ethnicity of one of the parties, experience as a plaintiff or defendant in a similar case, hardship serving on a jury for the expected length of time, things like that.

huh? I thought that would barr you from the case no matter what...

and what of knowledge of the case being tried before the trial. you know.. a case that has been airing for months on TV and such?

huh? I thought that would barr you from the case no matter what...


Erm, what I mean is, certain things will make you ineligible for jury service in any jury. But certain disqualifications depend specifically on the jury, like knowing someone who is a party. That's not a jury duty wide thing. It might disqualify you for the case involving a person you know, but you still could get assigned to another case, one where you don't know a party.

Likewise if you're biased against, say...hispanics, you could still get on a jury of a case not involving someone who is hispanic.

In other words, one set of disqualifications means you don't even need to come in to jury duty at all, the other set means you still have to come in, and they see if they find a case you can serve on.

In other words, one set of disqualifications means you don't even need to come in to jury duty at all, the other set means you still have to come in, and they see if they find a case you can serve on.

But you still may be dismissed by one of the attornies during the whole interview/questioning, correct?

But you still may be dismissed by one of the attornies during the whole interview/questioning, correct?

Sure, each lawyer gets a certain number.

Sure, each lawyer gets a certain number.

Thanks. Just making sure Im not making too much of an ass out myself.

Sure, each lawyer gets a certain number.

I have absolutely no knowledge of jury selection. I find that bit interesting, but I suspect it's something you'd actually have to experience. The closest I've gotten to that is being accused of a felony a few times.

I have absolutely no knowledge of jury selection. I find that bit interesting, but I suspect it's something you'd actually have to experience. The closest I've gotten to that is being accused of a felony a few times.

Usually attornies will try to make the jury stacked as little against them as possible. Keep people who they think they can win the sympathies of, dismiss those the opponent can, stuff like that.

Usually attornies will try to make the jury stacked as little against them as possible. Keep people who they think they can win the sympathies of, dismiss those the opponent can, stuff like that.

Yes, I've seen Law and Order. I mean the actual process, what you look for, what the rules are, etc.

Yes, I've seen Law and Order. I mean the actual process, what you look for, what the rules are, etc.

no hard fast rules.

The judge sets them. In general you need a reason, and that reason can be challenged by the other sides attorney. also judges like to set a certain number of jurors that can be removed with out reason or challenge.

Well it depends on how literal you want to use the term "prove".

Let's say you're charged with a crime. Your defense is that I, also could have committed the crime. As long as your defense can show that it was reasonably possible for me, not you to have committed the crime, there is reasonable doubt as to your guilt.

If I could have done it, that means it's not proven that you did do it. So for the prosecution to convict me they have to "prove" I didn't do it. Not prove in a literal sense, as I'm not on trial nor a party to any of this, but "prove" in the general sense, demonstrate that there's no reasonable chance that I, not you, committed the crime, and that the only reasonable explanation is that it was you.
Yes, this was what I meant. If your argument is "they can't prove I did it because that other guy could have done it just as easily," it does have to be reasonably possible for that to be true for your argument to stand.

However, last night, I thought Jocabia was taking it a little farther. Having read the overnight posts, I think now he wasn't but, still, this was what I was thinking, and, as a potential juror, I'd like some correction on this:

I was thinking that "reasonably possible," "reasonable chance," reasonable explanation" =/= proof in the sense of a criminal law burden of proof. So in fact, you don't have to prove that he did it, nor does the prosecution have to prove that he didn't, to the criminal law standard. The prosecution only has to meet the burden of proof in regard to you (the accused who is on trial), and you only have to weaken the prosecution's case against you, not build a case against someone else.

Also, I was thinking -- and this is another place where I'd like some correction -- that, in your own defense, if you can show a reasonable chance that it could have been someone else who did the crime, well, you can pretty much say whatever you like about that other person, including outright accusing them of doing it, without creating a situation in which their presumption of innocence will come into play. This is because you are not the prosecutor, and nothing you say about them will put them in any legal jeopardy whatsoever. They are not on trial, so the jury is not required to presume anything about them. In the context of the trial, the jury is only required to presume that the accused is innocent, not everybody else on the planet. If the jury decides, based on your defense's arguments, that it is reasonably more likely that the other person did the crime, and they acquit you as a result, that does not create an accusation against the other person.

Now, would this fall under the rubric of the jury simply believing the defense's arguments more than the prosecutions, and would that be a legitimate way for them to reach their decision? Or would it fall under the rubric of jury bias, because they assumed the guilt of another party, and thus be an illegitimate way for them to reach their decision?

Civil Law was one of the things I had to cover for my minor, most specifically in business but the basics were covered.

In a civil case thier is no presumption of guilt or innocence; the plaintiff and council must prove that they were in some way wronged by the defendant; the defendant and council must prove that they did not wrong the plaintiff.
The process in which civil and criminal trials take place is different even.

you're using "civil law" in a different sense. One of the most commons issues for first year law students is the fact that "civil law" has two seperate and entirely different meanings.

Pffft...if they haven't pounded the difference into you by the first week then you should probably choose another law school :P

Yes, that problem comes up so much. It was part of why I brought this up. I was actually thinking of you. Can't you offer up some explanation of the concepts, because I don't think I'm explaining very well. I was just talking about this on IM with NA.

Think about it. A lot of these are Americans. They end up on juries. Isn't that scary?

Sorry I wasn’t able to post this yesterday, we’re in the midst of forest fire season and had a few tense hours around here.

The biggest difference to understand between a criminal case and a civil one is who is pursuing the action. In criminal cases, it is the state versus the accused. Your crime, whatever it is, is against the state...even though obviously your crime itself has impacted someone, somehow. In civil cases, it is between the plaintiff and the defendant. As a victim of assault, you bring the civil charges against your alleged attacker directly.

Where people really get confused is the whole ‘burden of proof’ and ‘presumption of innocence’ thing. So, to paint very broad strokes...in a criminal case, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty...most of us know that. The burden of proof here is generally ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’...but not always. It’s going to depend on the wording of the offense. Without going into extreme detail there...just know that some elements of a crime are easier to prove than others, while some require much more proof.

In a civil case, it might be best to think to yourself that you’re not dealing with ‘guilt’, you’re dealing with ‘liability’. So take trespass to land, for example. It’s a strict liability tort (wrong), which means, once it can be proven that you actually stepped foot on someone else’s land, you are liable. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show ‘more likely than not’ (or in Canada, on a balance of probabilities) that you committed this trespass. Note, this burden of proof is MUCH less exacting than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. It’s often phrased as ‘51%’, though that isn’t always accurate. Anyway, at this point, since it’s a strict liability offense, you have very few options for defense. You cannot simply say ‘I didn’t know it was someone else’s land’. You can’t say ‘it was an accident’. About the only way you could defend yourself against the tort you are liable for is if the trespass was involuntary (you were hurled over the fence by a drunken friend or you were sleepwalking).

In civil cases, the burden shifts, as Neo Art has mentioned. Think of it always as ‘he who alleges must prove’. So if someone can make out the elements of a case against you, and you wish to contest those elements, you are now obligated to do so. It’s not a ‘reverse burden’ as I’ve seen said before. If I prove you trespassed, you must prove that you did so involuntarily if you wish to escape sanction.

Torts are complex...depending on the tort, you have certain elements that must be proven, and certain defences open to the defendant at certain times.

Yes, I've seen Law and Order. I mean the actual process, what you look for, what the rules are, etc.

There are no set rules and it would depend heavily on what the case involves.

Sorry I wasn’t able to post this yesterday, we’re in the midst of forest fire season and had a few tense hours around here.

The biggest difference to understand between a criminal case and a civil one is who is pursuing the action. In criminal cases, it is the state versus the accused. Your crime, whatever it is, is against the state...even though obviously your crime itself has impacted someone, somehow. In civil cases, it is between the plaintiff and the defendant. As a victim of assault, you bring the civil charges against your alleged attacker directly.

Where people really get confused is the whole ‘burden of proof’ and ‘presumption of innocence’ thing. So, to paint very broad strokes...in a criminal case, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty...most of us know that. The burden of proof here is generally ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’...but not always. It’s going to depend on the wording of the offense. Without going into extreme detail there...just know that some elements of a crime are easier to prove than others, while some require much more proof.

In a civil case, it might be best to think to yourself that you’re not dealing with ‘guilt’, you’re dealing with ‘liability’. So take trespass to land, for example. It’s a strict liability tort (wrong), which means, once it can be proven that you actually stepped foot on someone else’s land, you are liable. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show ‘more likely than not’ (or in Canada, on a balance of probabilities) that you committed this trespass. Note, this burden of proof is MUCH less exacting than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. It’s often phrased as ‘51%’, though that isn’t always accurate. Anyway, at this point, since it’s a strict liability offense, you have very few options for defense. You cannot simply say ‘I didn’t know it was someone else’s land’. You can’t say ‘it was an accident’. About the only way you could defend yourself against the tort you are liable for is if the trespass was involuntary (you were hurled over the fence by a drunken friend or you were sleepwalking).

In civil cases, the burden shifts, as Neo Art has mentioned. Think of it always as ‘he who alleges must prove’. So if someone can make out the elements of a case against you, and you wish to contest those elements, you are now obligated to do so. It’s not a ‘reverse burden’ as I’ve seen said before. If I prove you trespassed, you must prove that you did so involuntarily if you wish to escape sanction.

Torts are complex...depending on the tort, you have certain elements that must be proven, and certain defences open to the defendant at certain times.

Thanks. This explains the difference pretty thoroughly.

I especially found funny the "Everyone charged with a criminal offence" bit.

¿Por qué? :confused:

¿Por qué? :confused:

Because her link begins with ‘the presumption of innocence in a civil trial’ and then goes on to talk about criminal offenses. Civil law is not criminal law.

Another big mistake people make when using the term ‘civil law’, is in not understanding there are essentially two main systems of law in the world. The common-law, which is what you’ll find in the US, Canada, England, NZ, Australia and a few other places...and the civil law, which you have in France, Spain, and pretty much everywhere else in the world. The common-law is precedent based (to grossly oversimplify) and the civil law is more codified. So you have ‘civil law’ in the common-law system meaning private law, the law of torts...and you have ‘civil law’ as an actual entire system of law outside of the common-law.

Because her link begins with ‘the presumption of innocence in a civil trial’ and then goes on to talk about criminal offenses. Civil law is not criminal law.

Another big mistake people make when using the term ‘civil law’, is in not understanding there are essentially two main systems of law in the world. The common-law, which is what you’ll find in the US, Canada, England, NZ, Australia and a few other places...and the civil law, which you have in France, Spain, and pretty much everywhere else in the world. The common-law is precedent based (to grossly oversimplify) and the civil law is more codified. So you have ‘civil law’ in the common-law system meaning private law, the law of torts...and you have ‘civil law’ as an actual entire system of law outside of the common-law.

I found this part interesting. I read about the US system of law a LOT. Mostly having to do with the federal and state constitutions, but, like the stereotypical American, it never occurred to me that so much of the world would do it so differently.

The cool bit is with so much time on planes and the like, I have lots of time to read. I love it when people open completely new venues for me. Thank you.

Oh, wait, I mean, screw you, Sinuhue. I hate you. I HATE YOU!!

Because her link begins with ‘the presumption of innocence in a civil trial’ and then goes on to talk about criminal offenses. Civil law is not criminal law.

I know. It's just that I thought there was something about the particular phrasing of article six (2) he found funny, and I couldn't see what...

I know. It's just that I thought there was something about the particular phrasing of article six (2) he found funny, and I couldn't see what...

I'm glad you showed up, Grav. You're all nice and shit.

Also, I could add that common law isn't exactly a uniform legal system, so it's not as easy to say anything short and to the point without comparing the different legal traditions that fall under the classification "common law".

However, I can also repeat that the presumption of innocence is a right that's guaranteed under the European Convention of Human Rights, and as such is a part of the national legislation of any member of the Council of Europe. (Though in some cases it was a part of the national legislation prior to the convention.)


I'm glad you showed up, Grav. You're all nice and shit.

Unfounded rumours and hearsay.

Unfounded rumours and hearsay.

Well, I hear it's a good reason to listen to you.

Some more info on civil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_%28legal_system%29) versus common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) systems. Wiki be a good friend for general info:)

Also Fiqh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh) law which I'll be honest, I know squat about. 'Tis interesting though.

And I hate you too, Jocabia.

Well, I hear it's a good reason to listen to you.

My, what big ears you have...