Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Proven Innocent or Proven Guilty?

If illegal contraband is alledgedly found in a residence (with intent to sell), when the resident, and 1 out of the 2 non-residents were arrested, where does the burden of proof lye? Do the ones arrested have to prove their innocense or does the prosecuting attorney have to prove who is guilty? Would the fact that 1 of the 3 not arrested, constitude or create a reasonable doubt in any jury or judges mind? Also, if the 3rd. person cannot be found to testify, where do they go from there? Is there really any justice anywhere in this world? I really could use some honest answers on where to go from here. Please help! I will anxiously be waiting for any and all responses. Thank You so much for those of you who care to help.


Asked on 1/11/02, 11:52 am

3 Answers from Attorneys

Joseph Low IV Joseph Hawkins Low IV & Associates

Re: Proven Innocent or Proven Guilty?

1. Whose Burden is it?

It is always the prosecutor's burden to prove the guilt. That is what the law says anyway. However, practically speaking, when 12 common people sit in the box and the government hurls an accusation at someone, they generally believe that it must be true, otherwise why would the government make the accusation?

In this situation it is my understanding that you seek to prove that although you may live in the house the drugs belonged to someone else. This is what I call a defense of guilt by association. This is the defense where you say that the other guy did it and the only reason that you are being charged is because you just happen to live in the same area as the real person who committed the crime. This can work depending on the facts.

There is a jury instruction that you should have your attorney include in the trial that deals with circumstantial evidence. It basically says that if there are two reasonable conclusions from the same set of facts, one which points to innocence and the other that points to guilt, the law requires that the jury MUST adopt the one that points towards innocence.

In this situation, depending on the facts, you have two reasonable conclusions, one that the drugs belong to the other roomate, and two that they belong to you. Unless the government can prove that the drugs could NOT have belonged to the other roomate, you should be acquited. Remember, the government has the burden to prove you did it and that no one else could have.

The good news is that there is hope as long as you keep the faith and your legal team is capable of thinking outside of the box. Call if you have any additional questions.

Read more
Answered on 1/11/02, 12:19 pm
David Diamond Diamond & Associates

Re: Proven Innocent or Proven Guilty?

The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution hence the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" . . .if you need further help with your situation, feel free to contact me.

Read more
Answered on 1/11/02, 2:44 pm
Robert Miller Robert L. Miller & Associates, A Law Corporation

Re: Proven Innocent or Proven Guilty?

Thanks for your posting. The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor, not on the various co-defendants to prove their innocence.

What they tell the police, however, can be perhaps used against the others, and that is part of the equation that is difficult to predict without further facts.

Best of luck to you, and if you have more questions, please feel free to email or call at 714-568-1560.

Read more
Answered on 1/11/02, 5:35 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in California