Pubdate: Sun, 21 Jul 2002
Source: Daily Herald, The (UT)
Copyright: 2002 The Daily Herald
Contact:  http://www.harktheherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1480

HARDING INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Fourth District Judge Ray Harding Jr.'s arrest on drug charges stunned Utah 
County last week.

People don't expect to see sitting judges arrested and brought before the 
bar in a jail uniform and shackles.

Harding is accused of having cocaine, heroin and barbiturates in his 
Highland home. He is out on $10,000 bail while he awaits formal charges.

The state's chief justice has already relieved him of judicial duties until 
his legal situation is worked out. But some people aren't waiting that 
long. On Internet message boards and around office water coolers are those 
who have already convicted Harding based on what they've read in the 
newspaper or seen on television.

While such speculation is natural, we think it is inappropriate. We 
shouldn't rush to judgment on an accused man, even a well-known jurist in 
Utah County.

This does not mean that we do not take drug abuse seriously, nor that we 
think people in high places should get a pass or be treated with kid gloves 
when they do wrong.

But we think Harding deserves the same respect accorded any American 
accused of a crime: To be considered innocent until proved guilty.

The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the American judicial 
system. Unlike French courts, which consider the accused guilty from the 
beginning, American courts hold the opposite view. The burden is on the 
prosecutor to prove guilt, either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a 
preponderance of evidence, depending on whether it is a criminal or civil case.

It's a legal doctrine that can annoy armchair jurists. Someone can commit a 
crime in front of witnesses, be photographed in the process of doing it and 
even admit he did it. But when he has his day in court, he is presumed 
innocent, and the prosecution must present a case that meets the required 
legal standard for proof.

It is a high bar for prosecutors. And in some cases, someone who may appear 
guilty can walk out a free man because prosecutors didn't sufficiently make 
their case. The O.J. Simpson murder trial and President Clinton's 
impeachment trial on perjury charges are classic examples of that.

The presumption of innocence also requires jurors to withhold judgment 
until all the facts are presented and an intelligent decision can be made.

Presuming innocence protects the accused from being railroaded for crimes 
they didn't commit, and it assures that even the guilty have proper legal 
defenses.

In Harding's case, all we know is that he was arrested and police found 
drugs in his home. Purportedly, the drugs belonged to the judge but this 
has not yet been clearly established. There are gaps in the story, and 
prosecutors haven't yet made a formal accusation.

Harding's leave from the bench is required by law, given the possibility 
that he can be charged with a criminal offense. The suspension, per se, is 
not evidence that Harding is guilty, but a precautionary administrative 
move that avoids jeopardizing cases he would have heard. Harding continues 
to receive a salary.

The only difference between Harding's case and the average person accused 
of a drug crime is that Harding was detained in another county, and 
prosecutors and judges with no connection to Harding's judicial district 
will be handling the matter. Those moves do not amount to preferential 
treatment; they ensure both Harding's physical safety and his right to a 
fair and impartial trial.

We think Harding, as any defendant, should have his day in court and be 
allowed the same presumption of innocence.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth