Nancy Pelosi gets swift lesson in basic law after declaring Trump must 'prove innocence' after indictment
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) received a swift lesson in basic criminal law on Thursday over her backward response to former President Donald Trump being indicted.
"The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law. No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence," Pelosi reacted. "Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right."
\u201cThe Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law. \n\nNo one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence. \n\nHopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.\u201d— Nancy Pelosi (@Nancy Pelosi) 1680221715
The problem with Pelosi's response is obvious: The U.S. criminal justice system does not afford the accused "the right to a trial to prove innocence."
Rather, Americans accused of crimes are assumed to be innocent. Prosecutors, who officially charge individuals, are responsible for proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And if a jury unanimously agrees the government failed to meet that standard — even if everyone "knows" the accused is guilty — the criminal justice system dictates that the accused is not guilty.
Cornell Law School also explains:
The presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. However, through statutes and court decisions—such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky—it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial.
Twitter, moreover, added a correction to Pelosi's tweet.
"Ms. Pelosi mistakenly says that Trump can prove his innocence at trial. Law in the US assumes the innocence of a defendant and the prosecution must prove guilt for a conviction," it says.
What was the response?
Pelosi's tweet went viral, generating more than 10 million views by Friday morning and a tidal wave of backlash. Thousands of people provided Pelosi with a basic legal lesson about the presumption of innocence.
- "This exactly the opposite of how this works. Nobody is required to 'prove innocence' in our criminal justice system. See the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments, or any episode of 'Law and Order,'" Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), a lawyer, said.
- "The right to 'prove innocence'? This is America, not Stalinist Russia," Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a lawyer, responded.
- "Wrong. So obviously wrong. Most Middle Schoolers know this—at least they used to, when civics and the Constitution was respected in schools. You're innocent until proven guilty," Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer, responded.
- "This is exactly backward. Under our justice system, no one has to prove innocence. The state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You’d hope a former speaker would know the basics of law and be precise, especially in such an unprecedented and seemingly flimsy prosecution," former Rep. Justin Amash, a lawyer, said.
- "Uh it's 'innocent until proven guilty' not opportunity to 'prove innocence,'" Ben Shapiro, a lawyer, said.
- "Nancy Pelosi is dead wrong here. Does she really have no clue that the burden is not on a defendant to prove their innocence at trial?" former Rep. Lee Zeldin, a lawyer, responded.
- "Stalinist Pelosi. Prove innocent? It's innocent until proven guilty, moron. Or at least used to be," BlazeTV host Mark Levin, a lawyer, responded.
To be fair, Pelosi is not a lawyer, so how could she possibly know about the presumption of innocence? At least she does now.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Jury forewoman in Michael Sussmann trial raises eyebrows with revealing comments: 'I don’t think it should have been prosecuted'
The forewoman of the jury that found former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann not guilty of lying to the FBI spoke to media on Tuesday after the case concluded.
The comments have some legal experts raising new concerns about the jury.
What did she say?
The jury forewoman, who declined to provide her name, told media she believed the case was essentially a waste of time.
"I don’t think it should have been prosecuted," she said, the Washington Times reported. "There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI."
Confusingly, the forewoman also claimed the government "succeeded in some ways and not in others" in proving its case, although she did not elaborate on what she meant.
Considering that juries in criminal court are tasked with determining whether the government succeeded beyond a reasonable doubt in proving its case, it is unclear how the government could have both succeeded and failed to do so in the Sussmann case. Either government prosecutors met their burden of proof or they did not — there is no gray area.
"We broke it down, and it did not pan out in the government’s favor," the forewoman added. "Politics was not a factor."
What was the reaction?
Matthew Whitaker, a former federal prosecutor and acting U.S. attorney general, told Fox News on Wednesday the jury forewoman's comments demonstrate to him a case of "jury nullification."
"My biggest concern is the jury foreman came out and really gave up what the jury was discussing, which is that they thought this case should have never been brought to their attention in the first place," Whitaker explained.
"And that's a little concerning because this looks more like a jury nullification, where even though the evidence was overwhelming, even though they, the government, proved their case, that the jury just decided that this wasn't a case worth pursuing," he added. "So this case, to me, factually and legally was a slam-dunk case. But as I had said earlier, leading up to this jury verdict, this jury was going to be very difficult for Durham and his team to get a conviction."
Meanwhile, constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley described the forewoman's comment as "the type of statement that would have drawn a likely challenge from prosecutors during voir dire."
"Telling a lie to the FBI was the entire basis for the prosecution. It was the jury's job to determine the fact of such a lie and its materiality," Turley added. "Of course, this statement can be a simple criticism of the underlying charge without admitting to bias in weighing the elements. Yet it would have prompted a challenge in the courtroom if expressed during jury selection."
Last week, Turley expressed concern over the partiality of the jury.
"[Sussmann] is facing a jury that has three Clinton donors, an AOC donor, and a woman whose daughter is on the same sports team with Sussmann’s daughter. With the exception of randomly selecting people out of the DNC headquarters, you could not come up with a worse jury," he said.
www.theblaze.com