We must keep faith in our justice system
When accused robber Daniel Whited walked from the courtroom a free man Friday, District Attorney Dale Potter and two key witnesses walked from the courtroom in a state of disgust.
The three were bewildered at how Whited could have been found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Potter went so far as to compare Whited’s case to the O.J. Simpson trial. He believes justice has not been served and that he had more than enough evidence to convict Whited on the charges against him.
The Standard is not here to determine Whited’s innocence or guilt. It’s not the newspaper’s job to rule on court evidence — only to report it.
But the newspaper will say the system of justice we enjoy in the United States is the best in the world. Sure, it could always use a little tinkering, but by and large, our legal system is second to none.
It is always important to remember one of our basic principles of law. A person is presumed innocent until found guilty and Whited was found not guilty Friday evening. He is a free man and rightfully deserves to be treated as such.
We also must remember the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. And, whether Potter wants to admit it, there must have been some form of reasonable doubt or jurors would not have let this man walk free. For the sake of community safety, we hope the district attorney’s office is always successful in obtaining guilty verdicts when the defendant is in fact guilty.
We must also remember why our system of justice was established. There’s an old adage that says it’s better to let 100 guilty men walk free than to wrongly punish one innocent man. And that’s one reason why the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, so innocent people aren’t left to rot in jail.
Potter and his office need to shake off the disappointment of this case and concentrate on what lies ahead. There are some major cases in store, including one high-profile murder case involving Eric Sullivan on the horizon.
What makes Sullivan’s case especially troublesome is that he was reportedly overheard confessing to the murder to his attorney at the time, Bart Stanley. That confession, however, is not admissible in court, nor is Stanley’s presence as the judge since there’s an obvious conflict of interest.
Take out Sullivan’s confession and this is a case that’s difficult for the prosecution because some form of reasonable doubt will exist – especially since there were no eye-witnesses.
In the end, we have to continue to put faith in our legal system, believe the facts will come out in court and trust justice will be served.