# data[].attributes.body
This YouTube video is relevant to the selected topic as it provides a basic understanding of the selected concept i.e.- innocent until proven guilty. This video explains what this concept means in law and why is innocent until proven guilty precedent important.

# data[].attributes.headline
Importance of Innocent Until Proven Guilty

# data[].attributes.subject
Importance of Innocent Until Proven Guilty

# data[].attributes.body
This is a relevant video that highlights why the concept of innocent until proven guilty is important and why a thorough process of proving guilt or wrongful intention is important.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innocent Until Proven Guilty and WHY it is Important

# data[].attributes.body
This image signifies how a person holds power in front of court of law due to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty

# data[].attributes.body
This video is related to the topic of innocent until proven guilty. This video provides overview of the concept from the perspective of a law expert. How innocent until proven guilty should be seen has been also discussed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Innocent UNLESS Proven Guilty!

# data[].attributes.body
This image signifies that the presumption of innocence is an important element of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom

# data[].attributes.body
This is an important article that explains the concept of innocent until proven guilt. Most importantly, it has been highlighted that presumption of innocence is a fundamental right in Canadian Law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 11(d) guarantees Canadians the right to be presumed innocent. Specifically, anyone detained or charged with an offence has the right " to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ". We could argue that the presumption of innocence is the most fundamental and important principle governing criminal proceedings in Canada. This underlying principle impacts every aspect of the legal process, beginning when someone is initially detained by police to their potential trial and sentencing. The presumption of innocence is the reason why an accused who is charged with a serious criminal offence must be appointed a lawyer if they are not financially able to retain counsel or represent themselves.

A landmark case, R. v. Lifchus, 1997, is frequently cited with respect to a person's Charter right to a presumption of innocence. This case involved a defendant who was convicted on a charge of fraud but won the right to appeal their conviction because defense counsel successfully argued that the trial judge erred in her instructions to the jury regarding "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". When explaining the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury, the trial judge used the words: "in their ordinary, natural every day sense". But contrary to this explanation, 'reasonable doubt' has a specific meaning when used in a criminal law context and " jurors should not be invited to apply to the determination of guilt in a criminal trial the same standard of proof that they would apply to the decisions they are required to make in their everyday lives, or even to the most important of these decisions".

A judge's instructions to a jury must clearly communicate how the presumption of innocence must guide their decision-making. " The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is vitally important since it is inextricably linked to that basic premise which is fundamental to all criminal trials: the presumption of innocence ". A jury should always be instructed that it is not a frivolous, subjective or sympathetic concept, but rather, it is a doubt based on reason and on all the evidence (or lack of evidence) provided. This means that the accused person enters a court proceeding presumed to be innocent and that presumption should remain until the Crown has submitted enough evidence to satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty.

In protecting a person's right to the presumption of innocence, it is not enough that the Crown proves that the accused is 'probably' guilty. Rather, a jury should be advised that they can convict an accused person only if they are sure or certain that the defendant is guilty. In R. v. Lifchus, the Court stated that an accurate explanation of the required burden of proof by a judge to the jury is essential to ensure a fair trial and the trial judge's error in explaining this fundamental principle to the jurors was substantial grounds for an appeal in this case, as the verdict may not have been the same if the jurors were properly instructed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held, in R. v. Starr, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities.

The presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof in a trial is on the prosecution not only in terms of proving a person guilty of a particular offence but also, with respect to sentencing. In R. v. Hill, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court asserted that the Crown must prove that the defendant is a 'dangerous offender' before sentencing him as such. This case concerned a man who had previously served sentences for two criminal convictions and was being charged with a third primary designated offence. The Crown was seeking to have the defendant designated as a 'dangerous offender', largely based on the presumption defined in the Tackling Violent Crime Act, section 753(1.1), which states that when someone is convicted of three primary designated offences with sentences of at least two years imprisonment for each offence, the offender is presumed to meet the criteria of a 'dangerous offender' unless proven otherwise. However, in R. v. Hill, the court concluded that section 753(1.1) infringes on a person's fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, section 7. Also, given that the 'dangerous offender' indeterminate sentence is the harshest sentence in the Canadian criminal justice system, the court found that there are no valid grounds for placing the burden of proof on the defendant to show that, on a balance of probabilities, they do not meet the section 753 criteria.

The following guiding principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, in D.W. v. The Queen, clearly demonstrate the substantial onus on the Crown to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously, you must acquit. Secondly, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit. Thirdly, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
If you are detained or arrested, contact the skilled and determined criminal defense lawyers at Kruse Law immediately. We will apply our considerable resources and experience to help get the charges against you dismissed and avoid conviction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Presumption of Innocence Is a Fundamental Principle in Canadian Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 11(d) guarantees Canadians the right to be presumed innocent. Specifically, anyone detained or charged with an offence has the right " to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ".

# data[].attributes.body
To help further understand the concept, this article highlights some real life examples of presumption of innocence and how it holds relevance in the court of law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The presumption of innocence is one of the most important principals in the American legal system. You are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. This remains true no matter how certain the police claim to be of your guilt and no matter how seemingly strong the evidence.

For those facing drunk driving and drug arrests in Tennessee and Georgia, failure to remember this principal can result in the compromising of important rights. Don't ever plead guilty without first consulting with a skilled defense lawyer who knows and can protect your rights. Consider these three scenarios in which this legal principal finds its real-world applications.

You blew above .08

Breath tests are not always reliable. For test results to be legally admissible, the machine must be in proper working condition, manufactured and calibrated according to strict protocols, and administered by qualified personnel. No matter what the test said, you are innocent until proven guilty.

You failed the field sobriety test

There are many reasons besides intoxication a person may fail a field sobriety test, including a recent injury, a medical condition and obesity. Your test results are merely evidence, not proof, of intoxication. No matter how poorly you performed, you are innocent until proven guilty.

The police found drugs in your car

The U.S. constitution protects all of us from illegal searches conducted by police. This applies to drug arrests in Tennessee and Georgia. Police must play by the rules and abide by the law. When they fail to do so, evidence may be deemed inadmissible in court. No matter what the police found or claimed to find in your car, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Your future may depend on knowing your rights

Criminal defendants make life-changing mistakes when they fail to realize that the law is on their side. Pleading guilty can be a grave error you will regret for the rest of your life. Before making any important decisions, always consult with a knowledgeable defense lawyer who can help you understand the true strength of the case against you. Your future may depend on it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
On Behalf of Meredith Mochel Attorney at Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" - Three Real Life Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The presumption of innocence is one of the most important principals in the American legal system. You are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. This remains true no matter how certain the police claim to be of your guilt and no matter how seemingly strong the evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is directly related to the topic of innocent until proven guilty. The article highlights how innocent until proven guilty can be misused by powerful people for protecting their reputation and absolving themselves of any wrongdoings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The presumption of innocence is one of the golden threads that holds together our justice system. It operates as a shield between the individual and the overwhelming power of the state. The presumption of innocence forms part of the legal bulwark that prevents unjust and wrongful convictions.

English jurist Sir William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760 said, "all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

He was right. Because the consequences of a wrongful conviction are heartbreakingly devastating.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The presumption of innocence is for the court of law, not for protecting the reputations of the powerful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The presumption of innocence is one of the golden threads that holds together our justice system. It operates as a shield between the individual and the overwhelming power of the state.

# data[].attributes.body
The presumption of innocence is the bedrock of the English legal system