Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
"State laws denying bail to accused sex offenders are unconstitutional, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday."
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/06/14/state-cant-deny-bail-to-accused-sex-offender-appeals-court-rules/
"The ruling involves two men charged in separate unrelated incidents of various charges, including sexual conduct with minors younger than 15. Both were initially denied bond based on an Arizona law and state constitutional provisions that deny bail in certain kinds of crime “if the proof is evidence or the presumption great that the person is guilty of the offense charged.”
It seems to me that if bail is denied based on "proof is evidence or the presumption great that the person is guilty of the offense charged" then it is the same as saying a jury cannot reach a conclusion that there is reasonable doubt the person is innocent. In other words, this standard of law can severely and pervasively prejudice a jury against an accused. Moreover, this law eliminates the portion of the Rule of Law that says a person is "innocent until proven guilty" through a trial or a plea of guilty.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/06/14/state-cant-deny-bail-to-accused-sex-offender-appeals-court-rules/
"The ruling involves two men charged in separate unrelated incidents of various charges, including sexual conduct with minors younger than 15. Both were initially denied bond based on an Arizona law and state constitutional provisions that deny bail in certain kinds of crime “if the proof is evidence or the presumption great that the person is guilty of the offense charged.”
It seems to me that if bail is denied based on "proof is evidence or the presumption great that the person is guilty of the offense charged" then it is the same as saying a jury cannot reach a conclusion that there is reasonable doubt the person is innocent. In other words, this standard of law can severely and pervasively prejudice a jury against an accused. Moreover, this law eliminates the portion of the Rule of Law that says a person is "innocent until proven guilty" through a trial or a plea of guilty.
You're damn right it can influence a jury, even if it doesn't come into "evidence" at trial, jurors learn things and they don't "disregard" them.