Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog
Justin Timberlake’s arrest for DWI (called ‘OVI’ in Ohio) demonstrates the crucial need for the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. Within hours after Timberlake’s arrest, hundreds of website pages broadcasted the accusation. Many people, like the writer of this article, have already convicted him in their minds. In court, the presumption of innocence is critical due to our human nature to presume guilt.
It Seems Natural to Presume Guilt
Presuming guilt seems to be part of our human nature. For example, imagine you are driving down the highway and, on the berm, you see a police cruiser stopped behind a car with an officer approaching the driver’s window. What do you assume? You assume the driver of that car must have done something wrong. That is the natural assumption. It is possible, however, the officer is informing the driver of a burned-out tail light or coming to the aid of a driver whose car broke-down.
Now imagine you are a juror and you are told the ‘defendant’ is accused of OVI. It is natural to presume the person on trial is guilty. After all, as the saying goes, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire”. It is almost instinctive to think, “If a police officer charged him with DUI, he probably did it.”
Overcoming the Presumption of Guilt
It is difficult to overcome the natural presumption of guilt. That is why the presumption of innocence is necessary in criminal trials. The presumption was described in the preeminent treatise Wigmore on Evidence: “[I]t cautions the jury to put away from their minds all the suspicion that arises from the arrest, the indictment, and the arraignment, and to reach their conclusion solely from the legal evidence adduced.”
For a trial to be fair, jurors must (unnaturally) begin a case presuming the defendant is not guilty of the crime(s) charged. Jurors must maintain that presumption throughout the presentation of all the evidence. Only if the evidence, presented in the courtroom, proves the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can the jury find the defendant guilty.
Presuming Innocence is a Constitutional Right
The presumption of innocence is not in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights. However, it has long been considered a fundamental right and was recognized as such by the United States Supreme Court in the 1895 case of Coffin v. United States. In the later case of Estelle v. Williams, the Court stated the presumption of innocence is a basic component of a fair trial secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Presumption in High-Profile Cases
The presumption of innocence should be afforded, even when the media posts evidence which seems to prove guilt. In Bruce Springsteen’s DWI case, media outlets published the evidence against him: odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, glassy eyes, poor performance on field sobriety tests, and refusal of a preliminary breath test.
In Timberlake’s case, the media reported the evidence against him: odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, bloodshot/glassy eyes, unable to divide attention, slow speech, poor performance on field sobriety tests, and refusal of a preliminary breath test. Sound familiar?
Springsteen’s DWI charge was dismissed.
Let The Criminal Justice System Decide
Maybe Timberlake, unlike Springsteen, is guilty of DWI. If he is, then he will be punished according to New York law, and his conviction will serve as a learning experience for him and possibly many others. If, like Springsteen, Timberlake is determined to be not guilty, it should be a learning experience for all those who jumped to the wrong conclusion.