Uh ... say what, now?

[unixronin]

[...] even though the jury acquitted him of the crack charge, the judge kind of figured he'd done it and therefore found, by a preponderance of the evidence that he'd done it, and sent him to prison as if the jury had actually said "Guilty" rather than "Not Guilty."

WTF?

Excuse me if I've been asleep a long time, but ... the last time I knew, the standard of proof in a criminal case was not "by a preponderance of the evidence", it was "beyond a reasonable doubt".  And then the high court refused to hear an appeal?

Somebody just got railroaded here, and if this stands up, it's a very, very dangerous precedent.  What's the next step?  Presumption of guilt instead of presumption of innocence?  Eliminating the jury altogether and going to an inquisitorial court system like, say, Italy's?  Perhaps we could allow secret evidence in all trials, not just ones where someone within a half-mile radius said the word "terrorist", and deny all defendants the right to confront their accusers, hear and contest evidence presented against them, or know the charges against them.

Comments

[yndy.livejournal.com]

One: I'd have to read the actual decision. That's a summary of what the court decided and particularly slanted.
Two: The appellate courts only rule on procedural issues, not issues of fact - so it's kind of a weird world for non-legal folks
Three: We lost Habeus Corpus sometime during the Bush administration - so it's not terribly surprising that "imprisonment without relief" applies after a ruling as well as before it.
Four: Yeah, the big issue is really "whose job is it?" Because technically, the judge is supposed to apply the law *as enacted by the legislative arm* of the government, be it local, state, or federal. But thanks to Madison v. Marbury, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) gave themselves the right to "overrule" the legislative branch based on their interpretation of Constitutionality. By extension, that "right" dropped down to the State Supreme Courts as well... so technically, even if legislated, if they think it is unconstitutional (state or fed) they can just disregard that law. It's a power struggle. The loser is ALWAYS the people.
Five: there have been a lot of absurd rulings lately - this one doesn't even come close to the one where the Supreme Court ruled that you can execute a man even if he's innocent of the crime.
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/08/scotus-orders-a-new-hearing-for-troy-davis/
The good news is that the internet enables us to stand up and say WTF???!!! in large enough numbers to force new hearings when the ruling is just beyond the pale. Hope it happens for the guy in the case you linked too.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

All caveats noted. Still, I find this alarming.