Bill Lyle, a member of the Standing Judicial Commission, has posted a comment over at Green Bagginses. Go here, and read comment #8. I read through this comment with great interest. While he doesn’t put the thing quite as starkly as Bob Mattes does, the result is still judicially outrageous. He says:
“It will be the role of the prosecutor to prove LAP is in error.”
“It will be the role of LAP to prove the indictment is in error.”
What on earth is this? Why is it the role of the accused to disprove the accusation? I understand why the prosecution has to prove its case, but why does the defendant presbytery have to prove its innocence? This is why our forefathers in the English tongue came up with great words like travesty.
Every trial needs a default assumption. Either the defendant is assumed to be guilty, and has to climb out of the hole, or the defendant is assumed to be innocent, and the prosecutor has to establish his guilt. The defendant can’t be assumed to be guilty and innocent both. In this process, someone has the burden of proof.
It is clear from what Bob Mattes said (“strong presumption of guilt”) that the burden is on Louisiana Presbytery to prove its innocence? But that doesn’t sound very good, does it? How did we get to the point, without one trial, where the defendant comes into its trial with its guilt assumed. So it is necessary to blur things a bit — let’s have it both ways! Louisiana has to prove its innocence and the prosecution has to prove its guilt.
What a piece of gorgonzola cheese.