I have been empanelled 3 times here in Mass. at the Brocton court.
Each time I have told them I do not believe in the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. I explain the juror should be unbiased and the fact you asked a person to presume the defendant is innocent, until proven guilty is introducing a bias in favor of the defendant.
You should not do that: anymore than imply just because the person is on trial, that he was guilty of something,otherwise he wouldn't be on trial.
Jurors should be unbiased.
Then I go on to explain there is no constitutional or legal justification in American law for this assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
I never got put of a case and was empaneled each time. -tom
“Presumption of innocence” deals with the level of surity required to render a guilty verdict, rather than whether the juror is biased or not. The defendant does, indeed, get to start out with the legal presumption that he does not have to prove that he is innocent, but that the state has to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that he is guilty. I think you are misunderstanding the point to the principle somewhat.
The principle of presumption of innocence is rooted in common law. The defendant is treated as if he were innocent; e.g., he is not unlawfully detained, and he does not appear in shackles before a jury. This presumption means the state has the affirmative duty of proving guilt to some standard, and in the absence of doing so for each element of the crime, the defendant is to be found not guilty.
"Presumption of innocence" doesn't mean to ask jurors to believe a defendant is innocent. They're to keep an open mind until hearing all of the evidence, weighing the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony, and freely discussing the case with their fellow jurors before reaching a verdict.