Comments on: ENOUGH ALREADY! http://elusivejustice.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/enough-already/ One Attorney's Pursuit of Justice Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:15:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Why we presume innocence: « Elusive Justice http://elusivejustice.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/enough-already/#comment-82 Why we presume innocence: « Elusive Justice Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:08:23 +0000 http://elusivejustice.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/enough-already/#comment-82 [...] Posted by elusivejustice on April 24th, 2007 Here is a story about the 200th person to be set free from prison and exonerated by DNA evidence. Often we pay lip service to the idea of presumption of innocence, but deep down believe anyone charged with a crime, or even suspected of one, to be guilty. See the comment to this prior post. [...] [...] Posted by elusivejustice on April 24th, 2007 Here is a story about the 200th person to be set free from prison and exonerated by DNA evidence. Often we pay lip service to the idea of presumption of innocence, but deep down believe anyone charged with a crime, or even suspected of one, to be guilty. See the comment to this prior post. [...]

]]> By: elusivejustice http://elusivejustice.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/enough-already/#comment-75 elusivejustice Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:29:51 +0000 http://elusivejustice.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/enough-already/#comment-75 Perhaps the evidence the police had was very persuasive, but they obviously were not strong enough to bring charges. This does not change my analysis because insurers are very often suspicious of the insured being involved in the loss. Occasionally this suspicion is justified. More often than not, it really is more about having a handy hook upon which to delay or deny coverage. If you said that the police charged him in the crime, I would see it differently, but I would still not totally agree. To charge someone, there must at least be probable cause, which is a lower standard than preponderance. In a civil trial, preponderance is the standard and so being charged does not necessarily mean there is that much evidence. It is possible that they did not want to charge him without having clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt evidence, but we do not know that. I prefer to maintain the approach of our Founding Father's and presume innocence until proven guilty. I know, it isn't a very popular approach these days, but I'll stick with it just the same. Perhaps the evidence the police had was very persuasive, but they obviously were not strong enough to bring charges. This does not change my analysis because insurers are very often suspicious of the insured being involved in the loss. Occasionally this suspicion is justified. More often than not, it really is more about having a handy hook upon which to delay or deny coverage. If you said that the police charged him in the crime, I would see it differently, but I would still not totally agree. To charge someone, there must at least be probable cause, which is a lower standard than preponderance. In a civil trial, preponderance is the standard and so being charged does not necessarily mean there is that much evidence.

It is possible that they did not want to charge him without having clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt evidence, but we do not know that. I prefer to maintain the approach of our Founding Father’s and presume innocence until proven guilty. I know, it isn’t a very popular approach these days, but I’ll stick with it just the same.

]]> By: lisa Snyder http://elusivejustice.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/enough-already/#comment-74 lisa Snyder Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:07:03 +0000 http://elusivejustice.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/enough-already/#comment-74 What you didn't know was that the insured was a suspect in his own burglary loss. The police investigation never did clear him. Even in 2004 as part of the bad faith trial, the officer testified he was still a suspect. What you didn’t know was that the insured was a suspect in his own burglary loss. The police investigation never did clear him. Even in 2004 as part of the bad faith trial, the officer testified he was still a suspect.

]]>