4.Ruling on Presumption-of-Innocence Questions in Voir Dire
5 linesMR. WEINREB: Your Honor, can we pause for a moment?
THE COURT: Yes. Hold off.
MR. WEINREB: This is on the record. So the government objects in general to witnesses being asked if they can presume the defendant innocent without it being made clear that they're not -- whether they're being asked whether, based on what they've heard in the media, they believe him to be innocent or guilty versus whether they can sit in the jury box with the proper frame of mind, which is a presumption of innocence. I think it's going to -- asking it in that -- without making that distinction is going to muddy the record with answers that don't truly affect the juror's ability to be fair and impartial.
MS. CLARKE: Judge, there are two things going on here. I think it was very muddled by Mr. Weinreb's final question. There is the presumption of innocence, and then there is the government's burden of proof.
THE COURT: Right. But the presumption of -- I agree with Mr. Weinreb on this and was having the same -- it's -- the difference between a lay understanding of the term "presumption of innocence" and our specific understanding of it for these purposes, and it really is a duty to put your mind in a condition at the trial. And I think it is that distinction between the lay understanding and the legal understanding is lost on most people, and it produces an ambiguity.
I would have concluded, notwithstanding her answer to Miss Clarke's question, based on her answer to my question earlier, that she was able to do that. But I do think we should stay -- it will confuse the record if the -- if the jurors are confused about the manner in which the proposition is put to them. As I say, it is a term of art. It's fair to ask about whether previously formed impressions or conclusions about factual matters based on media reports, that's one thing. But to ask whether a juror -- we ask it of jurors in every case. And they have to answer that question, and it's a question that requires them to get into a role that they're not on a daily basis familiar with. But it is -- it's really a question of good faith. Will the juror be able, in good faith, to assume the duties of being a juror and follow the instructions, which are, to put your mind in a condition where the burden is entirely on the government to prove the propositions. And all we can do is try to gauge from the answer the demeanor of the witness -- of the juror, I mean, and other circumstances, whether an answer like this is a reliable one or not. But it's not simply on the face of it kind of proposition. So I think we can continue.