Presumptive Reasoning

I read Dick Cavett’s entertaining blog/column about the presumption of innocence this morning, and when I got home from class tonight I found a ruling (via MNSpeak) that echoed it. It quotes a passage from Minnesota law that no one among the 130 commenters at the NYT mentioned or cited any variation therof.

I am puzzled by the idea of presumption as a “rule of evidence” (as in we only admit evidence with presumption?). Cavett asserted this as the true source. Commenters at the NYT localized presumption of innocence as a part of due process, but that seems suspect as well. Presumption of innocence need not be a part of any process, due or otherwise. It’s a presumption, not a process; informing the procedure of prosecution (locating the burden of proof). What the heck does all this mean anyway? Well, in Minnesota it means that they can’t automate giving out tickets for running a red light based on the evidence of a traffic camera. The ruling puts it this way:

Regardless of whether petty misdemeanors are considered to be “crimes” under the criminal code, the rules of criminal procedure specifically apply to petty misdemeanors. Minn. R. Crim. P. 1.01. And those rules require that a defendant be “presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 23.05, subd. 3. Thus, in any prosecution under the Act, the state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner was driving at the time of the red-light offense, and the owner has no obligation to prove anything.

On the other hand, section 474.660 of the ordinance requires the owner to rebut the presumption that he or she was the driver, or face liability as the owner. Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid.

The “act” in question is the general state law applicable to running red lights. The “ordinance” is a city one, authorizing the use of traffic cameras. It seems that the supreme court of Minnesota, contrary to Dick Cavett’s playful and entertaining assertion, has a firm handle on this whole “presumption of innocence” thing. I’m glad.

April 5, 2007 11:31 PM