Simon Greenleaf Quotes

Our constitutionally-based criminal justice system places a high value on protecting the innocent. Among its central tenets is the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict someone without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The rules of evidence in the main are based on experience, logic, and common sense, less hampered by history than some parts of the substantive law.

There was never sufficient evidence presented at my trial to support a finding of intent to kill.

Well, you know, one lawyer says I'm the only witness and I'm not credible. Another lawyer says this witness - there's tons of evidence that's been available for years.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

I believe I am entitled like any other person to have the presumption of innocence.

Decisions on a matter as serious as charging an individual with a crime cannot be decided on anything less than complete examination of all available evidence. Anything less is not justice.

People are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

A trial deals with only a limited amount of information, considering only the evidence which is available and also admissible and which relates directly to the charges on the indictment.

A trial without witnesses, when it involves a criminal accusation, a criminal matter, is not a true trial.

An important and fundamental premise of the American judicial system is the presumption of innocence, that is until proven guilty.

A criminal should be exonerated if it is proven to the court that the blood of the victim was permitted.

The first thing a good lawyer does is immediately presume the guilt of his client.

People in general have no notion of the sort and amount of evidence often needed to prove the simplest matter of fact.

Laymen ought not to be accused save by dependable and lawful accusers and witnesses.

Circumstantial evidence … that wonderful fabric which is built out of straws collected at every point of the compass, and which is yet strong enough to hang a man.

The prosecution... wants to make sure the process by which the evidence was obtained is not truthfully presented, because, as often as not, that process will raise questions.

Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this.

While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.

There is a presumption of innocence in American law that means that you cannot consider making someone guilty until all the evidence is in the the procedures are completed.

You are innocent until proven guilty. And if folks have come forward, whether it is judge Roy Moore or whether it is anyone else, and they have evidence to convict someone of a crime, then they should go through the legal process and do so.

Courts of law require evidence to go to trial - not opinions from bureaucrats.

I believe that everybody is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

In our justice system, everyone who is charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. It should go without saying that people who are not charged with a crime also are presumed innocent.

I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by Wikileaks and just assume that they're all accurate and true.