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

[echristo.livejournal.com]

It is a disturbing verdict. IANAL but I read through it a bit. That said it's a sentencing issue and not a guilty/not-guilty. Basically the judge sentenced him to the time for both his guilty charge (selling cocaine) and the one on which he was acquitted (selling crack cocaine).

Still though, disturbing. I'd like to hear more on it from the people who made the decision.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That said it's a sentencing issue and not a guilty/not-guilty.

I find that somewhat debatable. On the face of it, yes, it's sentencing. But when the judge sentences him both for the charge on which he was convicted and the charge on which he was acquitted, the judge is de facto setting aside the jury's verdict on the second charge.