[donh]

Most of the time people get off on technicalities. To me, the presumption of innocence is a kind of technicality.

It doesn't seem like so much of a technicality to me. It seems like a basic philosophical issue in jurisprudence. A point which, I readily concur, may be a matter of indifference to those trained in the pursuit of the law as she is practiced. The presumption of innocence gives motivation for the rule of double jeopardy--which means that the law can't continue trying me over and over until it exhausts my funds and/or my life, or finds a jury more to it's liking.

[CobaltBlue]

Ya'll keep sliding past the meaning of "presumption". In this context, the presumption of innocence is a presumption of law, not fact. A presumption of law may well fly in the face of objective fact or be contrary to objective fact.

For example, frequently cited, the murder case against O.J. Simpson. Objectively speaking, the jury was too stupid or too biased to understand and accept the evidence against O.J.

BTW, the prohibition against double jeopardy really rests more on the prohibition against retrying a matter which has already been adjudicated once, res judicata. But this is not absolute. For example, a person who unlawfully uses a firearm to commit a felony, to wit, burglary, can be tried twice, once for burglary and once for unlawful use of a firearm. If the defendand appeals a conviction, and it is reversed, he can still be retried in most cases.

The double jeopardy clause prohibits the following: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. Appeals do not terminate the original jeopardy. Even if you are acquitted, in some states the prosecutor can appeal and retry the case against you.