ABC Turns Presumption of Innocence Upside Down in Boot-Camp Case: 'Enough Evidence to Acquit?'

New York Times/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law -- U.S. Supreme Court, Coffin v. United States [1895].

Was [there] enough evidence to find that they were not guilty? -- ABC News, Matter of Martin Lee Anderson [2007].

Forget that musty old 19th-century Supreme Court stuff. According to ABC, there's a new legal standard in criminal cases; at least those in which the MSM has a rooting interest. Henceforth, the presumption of innocence in such cases is abolished. There shall be a presumption of guilt, and the burden will be on the accused to produce enough to acquit himself.

View video here.

ABC's Kate Snow pronounced the new ruling in the course of interviewing the attorney and parents of Martin Lee Anderson, the 14-year old African-American boy whose death led to the indictment of employees of the Florida boot camp where he died. All the defendants were acquitted yesterday, but that wasn't good enough for Snow.

KATE SNOW: Gina [Jones, Martin Lee Anderson's mother], this was an all-white jury. Do you think if the make-up of the jury had been different, that you would be talking about a different verdict this morning?

GINA JONES: Maybe, yes.

SNOW: Maybe, but you're not sure.

JONES: Yes.

SNOW: Do you think there was enough evidence to find that they were not guilty?

JONES: No.

Interestingly, while the oh-so-sophisticated Snow apparently doesn't grasp the rudiments of our justice system, the boy's father did. His immediately following response clearly reflected his recognition that the burden of proof lay on the prosecution.

ROBERT ANDERSON: There was enough evidence [to convict]. It was right there in black and white. I mean, what else did you need, a rocket scientist to figure it out? All the evidence in the world, and they still came back with this not-guilty crap.

[montag813]

One of the guards involved with this is black, and he said they were doing as they were trained, and the "boy's" medical condition killed him. So how is this "racism"?

Also, the family got $5 million from the taxpayers of Florida even though they didn't deserve it. So can't they STFU now?

[NonValueAdded]

we’re all equal....cops are just a little more equal.

But the refutation to your assertion is in your own post. The guards were charged with aggravated homicide, not negligent homicide. That is the difference. You used the "n" word in your post, being the conclusion you drew from watching the video (and likely not from all the testimony that the jurors heard). Would you say the video supported the "a" word? I doubt you could support that.

Now, perhaps the "more equal than others" racket came from the prosecution being purposefully overzealous in the charge and underzealous in presenting the case. I dunno but suspect the real smoking gun might be found there.

[enough_idiocy]

OJ, Duke Students, Libby, Clinton, DeLay, Bill Frist, Terrorists.

It’s quite clear. Those the media deems the good guys are always innocent victims, those the media doesn’t like are guilty even after proven innocent.

[sarasmom]

This leaves an extremely bad tastes in my mouth, defending ABC....
But the State of Florida settled over 5 mil in taxpayer dollars worth of liability to the family prior to the resolution of specific criminal charges,indicating somebody on the government payroll was guilty of something, in this young boy’s death.
Why did the State essentially admit liability, if nobody did anything wrong?
Was it prosecutorial misconduct?
Did the guards get away with murder or merely negligent homicide? If they didn’t do anything wrong, why would the State of Florida accept liability for the child’s death?
This does not make any sense to me, as a parent.
The “government” accepts liability for the death of this child, but nobody in the employ of the government is actually ever identified as the person or persons guilty of causing the childs death?
The State closed the entire program down, prior to the trial of the individuals who were tried for the death of this child.
Why have the criminal trial at all, since the State of Florida had already assumed liability for the wrongfull death?

No, I don’t see that the child's parents can ever find any justice under the law, here.
Got a dead body,whose death was videotaped.
The State tries to pay the parents off, shuts down the entire boot camp program, but no individual(s) anywhere did anything wrong...it just...happened.

If it had been my child, I wouldn’t consider the “case” closed.
If it had been yours, would you?