-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
by Michael W. Flynn
First, a disclaimer: Although I am an attorney, the legal information in this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for seeking personalized legal advice from an attorney licensed1 to practice in your jurisdiction2. Further, I do not intend to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener.
Today, I will discuss two topics: the presumption3 of innocence4, and witness credibility. These two topics are implicated5 in a question from one of my favorite listeners, Nick:
I was recently given a parking ticket while parked in a legal space. I contested the ticket at town hall and got it reversed, but I worried about having to go to court. It seems that in the case of a ticket, defendants6 are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. My mom, who has taken tickets to court, says that if it just comes down to your word against the officer's, the court will usually trust the officer. Isn't this a reversal of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty?" Or is an officer's word considered proof?
Thanks again Nick. First, I will address the presumption of innocence. Many countries have enacted8 laws, or expressly provided in their constitutions that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. But, the U.S. Constitution does not expressly state this maxim9. Rather, scholars posit10 that it has been implied from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments11' guarantee of due process of law, and the Sixth Amendment's general guarantee to a fair trial.
The Supreme12 Court has also interpreted this presumption of innocence to go hand in hand with the prosecution's burden to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, assume you are on trial for stealing a car and driving it across state lines. Before the trial, you are still technically13 not guilty because the government has not proven your guilt7 beyond a reasonable doubt. At trial, if the government brings forth14 evidence that you stole the car, but neglects to bring forth evidence that you drove the car across state lines, then the government has failed to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence remains15, and you are found not guilty.
Next, let's turn to Nick's question about the parking ticket. First, please note that not all states consider minor16 traffic offenses18 to be criminal matters and those states do not require the stringent19 beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Some states consider parking tickets a civil penalty and use a "preponderance" standard. Under that standard, the government only needs to show that it is more likely than not that you committed the traffic offense17. Regardless of the standard, the burden remains on the government to show that you indeed committed the offense charged.
The government does this by producing evidence in the form of the police report, the ticket, the officer's testimony20, photographs, or other witnesses' testimony. You may try to defeat the charge against you by introducing your own evidence. Again, this may be your own testimony, photographs you take, other witnesses' testimony, etc. You may also try to show the judge or the jury that the police officer is not credible21. That is, that he should not be believed. You can do this by trying to show that the officer does not remember the incident very well, or has bad eyesight, or perhaps holds a personal grudge22 against you and only ticketed you out of spite.
Nick's question hits this issue squarely on the head. When the judge "usually trust[s] the officer," the judge is performing a credibility analysis. The judge is deciding that the officer's version of the story is simply more believable than yours. The judge might base this on the fact that the officer is a professional who is trained in identifying violations24 of the law, or that the officer has no personal stake in the case like you do. While the officer's testimony is not "proof," it is evidence that the judge may consider.
If the judge decides that the officer's testimony is more credible than yours, then there exists enough evidence that you indeed violated the traffic law. The government has put forth enough evidence to meets its burden to show that you violated the law. This is not a reversal of the presumption of innocence, but rather the judge making a credibility finding.
This distinction does not make many people feel better; it still seems that you are presumed guilty. In practice, once an officer thinks you have violated a traffic rule, you are toast because it will be difficult to make the judge think you are more credible than the officer. The best way to proceed in a traffic violation23 case is to gather as much evidence as you can at the scene. Take photographs, ask nearby witnesses for their thoughts and take their contact information. If you can mount enough evidence, then you have a chance at discrediting25 the officer and winning your case.
Thank you for listening to Legal Lad's Quick and Dirty Tips for a More Lawful26 Life. You can send questions and comments to。。。。。。or call them in to the voicemail line at 206-202-4LAW. Please note that doing so will not create an attorney-client relationship and will be used for the purposes of this podcast only.
Legal Lad's theme music is "No Good Layabout" by Kevin MacLeod.
1 licensed | |
adj.得到许可的v.许可,颁发执照(license的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 jurisdiction | |
n.司法权,审判权,管辖权,控制权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 presumption | |
n.推测,可能性,冒昧,放肆,[法律]推定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 innocence | |
n.无罪;天真;无害 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 implicated | |
adj.密切关联的;牵涉其中的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 defendants | |
被告( defendant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 guilt | |
n.犯罪;内疚;过失,罪责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 enacted | |
制定(法律),通过(法案)( enact的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 maxim | |
n.格言,箴言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 posit | |
v.假定,认为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 amendments | |
(法律、文件的)改动( amendment的名词复数 ); 修正案; 修改; (美国宪法的)修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 technically | |
adv.专门地,技术上地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 minor | |
adj.较小(少)的,较次要的;n.辅修学科;vi.辅修 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 offense | |
n.犯规,违法行为;冒犯,得罪 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 offenses | |
n.进攻( offense的名词复数 );(球队的)前锋;进攻方法;攻势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 stringent | |
adj.严厉的;令人信服的;银根紧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 credible | |
adj.可信任的,可靠的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 grudge | |
n.不满,怨恨,妒嫉;vt.勉强给,不情愿做 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 violation | |
n.违反(行为),违背(行为),侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 violations | |
违反( violation的名词复数 ); 冒犯; 违反(行为、事例); 强奸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 discrediting | |
使不相信( discredit的现在分词 ); 使怀疑; 败坏…的名声; 拒绝相信 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 lawful | |
adj.法律许可的,守法的,合法的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|