Source: oregonlive.com 8/26/24
A Washington County judge’s attempt at saving time by declining to read aloud a lengthy set of legal principles to a jury — including that the defendants are presumed innocent unless they are proven guilty — has prompted the Oregon Court of Appeals to throw out a man’s convictions for repeatedly sexually abusing a 9-year-old girl.
In reversing the convictions and 50-year prison sentence of 35-year-old Derek ___, the Appeals Court said it was recognizing the “Extreme importance” that jurors understand the “fundamental constitutional” rules at play before determining if a person is guilty.
I will presume this poor girl was actually assaulted, and that she genuinely believes this man was the one that assaulted her. Doesn’t mean he is guilty, just that she believes he is.
As such the insult this Judge’s attempt has subjected her to is outrageous. That remains true in all circumstances. Either she has been denied Justice for the crimes she was forced to endure, or she has been denied the minimal consolation of being able to move past this ordeal. Either way, the fault for this completely avoidable situation lays with the Judge, and is outrageous in my eyes.
I am, however, heartened by the Appellate court’s decision to overturn this unjustly reached conviction. It is better to let 1,000 guilty people go free, than to unjustly convict 1, which is what has happened to this man. The injustice of this conviction remains true in all circumstances.
The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to sex crime (against children, in particular), the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t apply.
I know the law says otherwise, but it simply does not happen in practice. Most (if not all) states have statutorily removed the requirement for corroborating evidence, leaving a bare accusation alone as sufficient evidence to convict, even if rescinded. Even worse, if a defendant can actually prove innocence, the prosecutor will adjust facts to get around it or the judge will simply refuse to allow such evidence. Worse still, proponents if this system refuse to see how easy it is to abuse it.
The appellate court here is simply trying to maintain the image of innocent until proven guilty. But that was effectively eliminated when the concept of plea bargaining originally came about, only to be amplified when plea bargaining became prevalent. Evidence is not reviewed by impartial magistrates, but by extremely partial prosecutors whose success is measured in terms of convictions and years sentenced.
Add in the criminal judiciary’s tendency to rubber stamp whatever the DA puts in front of them, a private defense attorney whose effort and loyalty only go as far as his client’s checkbook or a public defender whose only strategy is to take whatever plea the DA offers and you have the exact kind of court system the founders tried to avoid.
In a perverse way, I appreciate the trial judge’s honesty here. “Innocent until proven guilty” is an illusion. Why pretend otherwise?
If the guy is truly guilty, he needs to serve his time just like the rest of us. Crimes against defenseless children are morally worse and understandably so. However, it is refreshing to know that there are some Courts out there that still hold up Constitutionality in judgement.
Hmm, wonder if this judge read to the case and felt the defendant was being railroaded (as many have been) and this was his way of offering the defendant mercy, which is hardly ever offered to anyone accused of this situation.