Presumption of innocence... at trial

In his Aug. 14 column, Bail Bill Revisions Bungle Reform," Chesa Boudin writes: "The right to bail -- or pretrial release on monetary or nonmonetary conditions -- has been enshrined in the California Constitution since its adoption in 1849. For good reason: A bedrock principle of our criminal justice system is that a person is innocent until proven guilty."

As it happens, this is a common overstatement of the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520 (1979), limits the application of the "presumption of innocence" to actual criminal trials -- and nothing else. It states clearly: "The presumption of innocence is a doctrine that allocates the burden of proof in criminal trials." This means that the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty based upon evidence presented at his trial. It does not mean that the defendant must be presumed innocent for any other purpose.

Regarding bail, Bell decision states explicitly that the presumption of innocence "has no application to a determination of the rights of a pretrial detainee during confinement before his trial has even begun." So the presumption of innocence has no application in setting bail or in any other facet of the criminal justice process other than at the trial. Thus, it was a misstatement of the presumption of innocence for Mr. Boudin to apply it to the setting of bail.