Opinion ID: 4693763
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Misstatement of the Law

Text: Because the California Court of Appeal assumed without deciding that the prosecutor misstated the law, there is no state-court decision to which we can defer on this point. However, even if there were a state-court decision holding that the prosecutor did not misstate the law, we would conclude that such a holding would have been unreasonable. In stating that the presumption of innocence was “over,” the prosecutor misstated clear and long-standing federal law as articulated in a number of Supreme Court decisions. A jury must evaluate the evidence based on the presumption that the defendant is innocent. If the jury concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then—and only then—does the presumption disappear. The presumption of innocence is “the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary.” Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, 453 (1895). The presumption of innocence is “vital and fundamental.” Id. at 460. It is “a basic component of a fair trial under our system of criminal justice.” Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976). “[I]ts enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” Coffin, 156 U.S. at 453; see also Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 4–5 (1984). 22 FORD V. PEERY Criminal defendants lose the presumption of innocence only once they have been convicted. See, e.g., Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 399 (1993) (“Once a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which he was charged, the presumption of innocence disappears.”) (emphasis added); Delo v. Lashley, 507 U.S. 272, 278 (1993) (“Once the defendant has been convicted fairly in the guilt phase of [a capital] trial, the presumption of innocence disappears.”) (emphasis added); Betterman v. Montana, 136 S. Ct. 1609, 1618 (2016) (a conviction “terminates the presumption of innocence”).