Our criminal justice system is predicated on the power of the people within our society, represented by and embodied in a jury selected from amongst them, to decide if a member of the society has transgressed the criminal laws the society has elected to live by. The jury’s decision is to be based on the evidence of that transgression presented to them by the government prosecutor, acting on behalf of the society.
Before the jury is asked to make a decision (render a verdict), the government must present prima facie evidence of the accused’s guilt. Prima facie means sufficient evidence which, if believed by the jury, proves the accused’s transgression. “If believed by the jury”… hold that thought.
If the government does not make ‘a prima facie showing’ the Judge will dismiss the case, and discharge the accused, before the case is even ‘submitted to the jury’. This means jurors are only permitted to decide whether an accused has committed a crime if there is sufficient evidence, which the law has deemed to be the minimal necessary, for the jury to even consider whether to believe it.
In assessing if there is prima facie evidence, a Judge does not decide if the evidence is true — only that if it is true, it would be sufficient to prove guilt. Deciding what evidence is true (or isn’t) is the exclusive prerogative of the jury. The Judge can not participate in that decision.
The jury represents the people, who decide what is true. The Judge is merely a functionary of the government whose duty is to officiate over the proceeding, and assure the jury decision adheres to the law. Rules of evidence have evolved to provide the jurors the ability to decide the truth of the evidence. Only evidence that can be reliably weighed for its truth, by the jury, can be presented for their consideration.
An example of unreliable evidence is hearsay. The law school definition of hearsay is: “A statement made out of the presence of the jury offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” An example would be a witness who testifies before the jury about what another witness (who does not testify) claims to have seen. Such as a witness who tells the jury “I didn’t see what happened, but my neighbor did and told me he saw the defendant do…”. How is a juror to decide if what the neighbor claimed to have seen is accurate, if the neighbor doesn’t testify?
A witness who testifies before a jury can be cross-examined to test the accuracy of what the witness claims to have observed. Was the witness’ view obstructed for instance?
(FYI, the movie ‘My Cousin Vinny’ — from which that scene is taken — is used in law schools to teach trial practice. Though a comedy, it has some of the most accurate courtroom scenes ever portrayed in cinema.)
As a career prosecutor, presenting evidence (which “if believed by the jury” would support my accusation against an accused) was the essence of my job. It is unethical for a prosecutor — or any attorney — to knowingly present false evidence to a jury, and I NEVER did. It is also improper for a prosecutor to tell a jury what they must believe.
Those same principles have stayed with me in my writing of these columns in the Daily Post. I argue my case and, when I feel it appropriate, will link to ‘evidence’ that supports my point. The ‘evidence’ may be in a video, or a news article, or a ‘learned treatise’.
It’s up to you, the reader (acting as my jury, in a sense) to decide whether to ‘believe or disbelieve any or all’ the ‘evidence’ I link you to. If you believe it supports whatever I’m pontificating about, so much the better. Or you may not give the ‘evidence’ any validity — and either choose to agree with me anyway, or conclude I’m full of crap. Considering the feedback I get, readers of my columns encompass that entire spectrum.
Even though my columns are not bound by the ‘strict rules of evidence’ I was required to follow in a courtroom, I refrain from linking readers to ‘evidence’ I know to be false, unless I identify it as such to illustrate a point… as I recently did in my column about how the media portrayed a Supreme Court ruling.
The headlines I cited in that column are just a small example of the failure of too much of contemporary media to adhere to the premiss of the First Amendment — the “market place of ideas”.
The regime media perpetuate suppression of truth under the guise of claiming to only be interested in preventing the dissemination of “misinformation” and “disinformation” – which if closely analyzed means any information which challenges their agenda. While portraying themselves as “arbiters of truth”, they are in fact censors of free speech.
This was most blatantly illustrated in how the regime media reported on the Wuhan virus pandemic. To begin with, you couldn’t call it that because it unfairly suggested the virus came from there — which there is no doubt now that it did.
Then there was the media suppression of any challenge to the useless ‘mask mandates’. But at least the mask nonsense was relatively harmless compared to suppression of the truth about vaccines that has been revealed. (To the credit of the Daily Post, there was no suppression of the “free flow of ideas” regarding those matters, as my several columns on those subjects attest to.)
So long as Daily Post editor Bill Hudson allows it, I will continue to bloviate on subjects that interest me — and I hope will interest you. I will never knowingly speak falsely, and if I do err unintentionally, I will correct it.
What I will also do is continue to include links in my columns to what I believe is ‘evidence’ that supports what I write about — as I did with juries throughout my prosecutorial career. You decide whether to believe if that ‘evidence’ proves my point.
You readers are my jury.