I blogged before about the origins of the term “reasonable doubt” in our criminal jurisprudence (here). That post also touches on, briefly, the idea of the presumption of innocence and its origins. It reaches back to Roman law and further and one of the examples I cited (from the Supreme Court decision in Coffin v. U.S.) is particularly apt here:
Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the Governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, “a passionate man,” seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, “Oh, illustrious Caesar, if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?” to which Julian replied, “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?” Rerum Gestarum, L. XVIII, c. 1. The rule thus found in the Roman law was, along with many other fundamental and human maxims of that system, preserved for mankind by the canon law.
Coffin, at 455 (some citations omitted).
Ryan Braun and his attorneys “contented themselves” with challenging the process by which his urine sample was collected, stored, and shipped. For many this seems a merely “technical” challenge and not (as they would like) a complete denial. The difference seems (for his accusers) significant. But let us suppose that instead he simply said, “I didn’t do it. I don’t know how the sample came out positive, but I didn’t use anything. I’m clean.” Absent being able to show some error in the process, his suspension would have stood. Braun’s detractors – indeed, almost all of us – assume that the process by which urine is tested, the “science” of it, is airtight. We also conclude that if the process by which the sample was collected, stored, shipped, handled, and tested was done properly – then what comes out at the end of that process – Braun’s positive test for elevated testosterone – is the Almighty Truth, correct and irrefutable, no matter what he says. Therefore, what choice did Braun have other than to show that somehow the process by which this conclusion would be reached was not followed, incorrect, or flawed. Anything else – his general denial – would be pointless and met with nothing more than a sarcastic smirk and “yeah, right.” No matter that the process and testing procedures by which urine samples are collected and tested is hardly foolproof – even by the highest labs. Here are just a handful of links detailing scandals at criminal labs – and even two dealing specifically with the military’s drug testing labs (considered ‘state of the art’ and of the highest standards).
2008/09 – NY State forensic lab had widespread incompetence, which was covered up and not reported for years. Here.
2004 – Houston Crime Lab falsified evidence and was “wildly off” in other cases in both DNA and serology testing. Here.
2008 – “Shocking level of incompetence” at Detroit Crime Lab forced its closure. Here.
2011 – Military’s Premier crime lab “botched more evidence than was previously known.” Here.
1985 -Neuling, “Urinalysis Re-examined”, Army Lawyer, Fen. 1985 (including the results of the Army’s own “Einsel Commission”, which found that the results at one lab – Ft. Meade – were “unsupportable” in 90% of the cases they handled. 90%.)
2010- Nebraska CSI Chief Convicted of planting evidence to secure a conviction. Here.
I could go on pointing to such links for hours. There are websites devoted just to this.
What I detailed above these links, the concept of truth arrived at by a process, is the fundamental principle upon which our judicial system (and most civilized judicial systems) are based. We could certainly conceive of a system by which an Almighty Soothsayer peers into an accused’s heart to determine guilt or innocence. Or some oligarchy of sages. Or a King. Or a dictator. Anyone possessing even a modicum of reason understands that such a process would be nothing more than whim and the only way to ensure that we all get a fair shake is to ensure that there is an impartial process by which we come to arrive at some understanding of past acts – at which most of us were not present.
What does this mean for Ryan Braun? I don’t know. He might have used something. Hell, the odds are he did. But he also might not have. And if a three-person panel looked at the process by which he was convicted and decided that the process was not sufficiently complied with to ensure confidence in the result, then Ryan Braun got exactly what he deserved. As Robert Bolt noted in his masterpiece, “A Man for All Seasons”-
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!