Presumption of innocence

So the, the, the principles of our law are that you're innocent until you're proven guilty.

So there is a presumption of innocence that applies to everyone- Um, unless and until they either plead guilty by virtue of a guilty plea, or they're found guilty by a jury of their peers.

Um, and they make a decision unanimously in a criminal case, and they all collectively agree, and we're, we're seeing that right now in the United States on the Clancy case, and I think you were just talking about that.

That's the mom that killed the three children and asserted a defense of, uh, a postpartum psychosis, which is a complicated defense.

There may be a defense that's available to them.

So it's really hard to say, but, um, that individual has the right to go to trial just like anyone else, and they're presumed to be innocent despite what, um, the police may charge them with.

That's just-- And, and this is something I'm talking about now, the presumption of innocence.

Simply because someone is charged does not, um, presume that they're guilty.

Yes.

talking about the presumption of innocence.

It's looking increasingly likely that the police are not going to charge them through a statement that got released this week.

And Isaac Heaney's acceptance speech really shows something quite significant that we're going to reveal in this episode.

Of course.

And instead they just bent the knee to the left and now, you know, we're sort of eight weeks after this thing originally broke.

And six to eight weeks after, and finally the head of the Sydney Swans comes out at the Best and Fairest Awards this week to say that the Pullman Five should be afforded the presumption of innocence.

So early in the night, Andrew Pridham, who's the chairman of the club, he addressed the crowd and he said...

This podcast is for informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

[ on-hold music] Welcome back to The Presumption of Innocence, a podcast brought to you by the White Collar Criminal Defense and Government Investigations practice at Fox Rothschild.

I am your host, Matt Adams, and today I'm delighted to be joined by a returning guest who made a powerful impression the first time he was on this program.

In episode 22, entitled "Reclaiming Purpose: A Transformative Journey Through Addiction, Rehab, and Prison," we heard the full character arc of Jeff Grant's personal story, from a lucrative legal career that unraveled through addiction and criminality, through federal prison, and into a life of service and a life well-lived indeed.

Jeff's also the co-founder of Progressive Prison Ministries and the White Collar Support Group, which meets every Monday evening on Zoom and has served nearly 2,000 justice-impacted people.

He's over 20 years into continuous sobriety, and his work has been featured in The New Yorker, Forbes, Bloomberg Law, Vanity Fair, Business Insider, The Rich Roll podcast, and in a number of other outlets, including this one.

Jeff, welcome back to The Presumption of Innocence.

Thank you, Matt.

I don't really have reason to believe that it is, but I know in the case of some prosecutors, They get somewhat institutionalized, and they tend to start viewing things in a very narrow way.

And one of the casualties of that view can often be the constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence, the government's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which were not perfunctory provisions in our Constitution.

In fact, Jefferson said that those are the heart and lungs of justice.

the Constitution when it comes to criminal prosecutions.

So I guess I just want to get your views at the start here.

What is your view of the presumption of innocence, the government's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt in every criminal case?

Yeah, that's a great question.

So, of course, everyone is presumed innocent, you know, and it's the burden beyond a reasonable doubt falls on the state.