It's the Jury, Stupid!

By Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD

Sometimes people forget how the United States legal system works. Unlike my colleague who wrote the previous article projecting the untimely demise of R. Kelly in his Illinois criminal case of child pornography, I reserved any rush to judgment on the guilt or innocence of the accused. For one thing, I am not one of the jurors who is listening to the evidence presented by the Illinois prosecutor and the criminal defense attorney during trial. Second, the burden of proof for the Illinois prosecutor to meet to convict a person of a crime is not based on a "belief of one's guilt" but on what the Illinois prosecutor can actually prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did in fact commit the crimes alleged. Finally, if there is any reasonable doubt to any of the charges alleged and to any of the evidence that links the defendant to the crime, the jury must find the defendant not guilty by law.

So, instead of writing a long commentary to discuss the rationale behind R. Kelly's "not guilty" verdict on all fourteen (14) counts relating to child pornography, let's remember this basic premise that lawyers and non-lawyers alike should hold: withhold judgment unless the prosecutor has presented evidence to the jury (or judge), beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did in fact do the crime charged.


Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.