Hacker News Reader

Comment by DoughnutHole | Hacker News Reader

The problem is there are two different standards of proof at different points of the legal process.

Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt — all the onus is on the prosecution to prove that you indisputably committed that crime. In this case unreliable evidence was used without which this standard likely would not have been met.

Once you’ve been convicted (in this case on shoddy evidence) the onus is on you to offer evidence that you’re actually innocent - a reasonable doubt is no longer sufficient, you need to offer strong, new evidence that disproves the already decided “fact” that you committed the crime.

View on HN

So conviction is a "trap door" of evidence weight? If someone is convicted based on evidence that is later shown to be totally insufficient to support that conviction, this new information does nothing to overturn the conviction?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "later shown to be totally insufficient to support that conviction"? The sufficience of evidence doesn't randomly change. If you mean that they were convicted based on evidence that shouldn't have been shown to the jury, you can win an appeal on that.

The standard before your convicted is that the jury must find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard after you've been convicted is that you must have found substantial new evidence that warrants reconsidering the verdict, or you must show that the original trial was mishandled somehow. "I think the jury was stupid" is not a valid appeal.

Interesting points. The full details of the evidence was not presented to the jury. In that way, it did change. It is more, "the jury was not told the full story."

I think this re-raises the "trap door" question.

A lot of rights (like your right to remain silent, your right to a speedy trial, your right to bear arms, your right to vote, your rights to be free from search without reason) have been interpreted only apply up to the point of conviction. So yes, things get MUCH tougher once convicted as many rights no longer apply to you or are stripped from you.

In this case, up until conviction you are presumed innocent and guilt must be proven. Post conviction most of the appeals process is bared if not filed within 14 days of conviction (it used to be forever but then the US Justice system decided woohhh there that's too long and burdensome on the Justice system so 14 days was deemed a reasonable change to the previous 'forever'. A totally reasonable happy middle). After 14 days from conviction really the only relief available is to prove actual innocence, a much higher and more difficult standard to meet.

So falsify and/or misrepresent evidence just long enough to fool a jury. If the ruse is discovered one minute after conviction, who cares? Person's convicted now, doesn't matter?

With the caveat that this is coming from someone with zero training in law: what a load of horseshit.

No, people have 14 days not one minute (previously forever but reduced to 14 days to find a happy balance to ease the load on the judicial system) after conviction in the Feds to file what most Americans' think of when they think of an appeal. After 14 days (previously forever) the appeal process is greatly limited.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com