A few months ago, Shannon represented a client at a retrial on a case that previously resulted in a hung jury. After more than 11 hours of deliberations, it became evident that the case would end in a mistrial once again. Both sides found themselves in a challenging position. The prosecution was unlikely to secure a conviction, and the defense was unlikely to secure an acquittal. With two alleged victims involved, it was indeed a complex case.
During the jury’s deliberations, our client’s mother raised an important point – she had always supported the “Believe All Women” mantra promoted by the #Me Too movement. However, this concept contradicts crucial constitutional rights such as the presumption of innocence.
Our justice system is founded on the presumption of innocence. Without this presumption, the government could simply accuse a person of a crime and detain them (or, ahem, deport them) without due process. Instead, the burden lies on the prosecution to overcome this presumption and prove the accused guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The notion that we must automatically “believe the victim” in a sexual assault case, where often the only evidence is the word of the complainant, is unfair to the accused.
This situation underscores the significance of jury duty and the pivotal role jurors play. During a trial, the prosecution must present its case and prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant is guilty. Without defense attorneys challenging and holding the prosecution to this standard, every accused individual could be incarcerated without a fair defense. The belief that all alleged victims must be unquestionably trusted poses a significant challenge in defending sex crime cases. It often boils down to a “he said – she said” scenario. It is contradictory and impractical to insist on “believing” the alleged victim while also upholding the presumption of innocence for the accused.
Ultimately, when an accused individual is found not guilty, it does not necessarily imply that the jury concluded the alleged victim was dishonest. That is not the jury’s role. A verdict of acquittal or not guilty indicates the presence of reasonable doubt. Each juror may have their own reasonable doubt, but if any juror holds even one, the verdict must be not guilty.
Sex crimes present unique challenges compared to other types of cases, especially when societal narratives like “believe all women” clash with an accused person’s constitutional rights.
In our practice, Shannon has developed various strategies to navigate these intricate complexities between reality, the law, and the crucial aspects of a trial.
