Henry Wade Quotes

All decisions in the criminal justice system must be determined by the physical and scientific evidence, and the credible testimony corroborated by that evidence, not in response to public outcry.

The question in the Simpson case has never been whether he is guilty or not guilty but, given the facts and circumstances of this case, whether it is possible for him to be innocent. And the answer to that question has always been an unequivocal no.

I have this fringe theory that I've sort of stress-tested a little bit - the more polarising and popular a case is, the more likely an acquittal.

I never take up a case until I am convinced that the person is guilty.

I truly believe in O.J.'s innocence, and unless they find him guilty, I will continue to support him.

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.

Everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise.

In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.

In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd.

I never sympathise with the accused unless there's a chance the accused is not guilty, but I certainly don't ever sympathise with the criminal.

I think most defense attorneys honestly believe the principle that says, 'Better 10 guilty go free than even one possibly innocent person be convicted.'

A reasonable doubt is nothing more than a doubt for which reasons can be given. The fact that 1 or 2 men out of 12 differ from the others does not establish that their doubts are reasonable.

It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.

Due process does not require that every conceivable step be taken, at whatever cost, to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person. To conclude otherwise would all but paralyze our system for enforcement of the criminal law.

When a person is found not guilty, they're found not guilty.

As a citizen - or even a TV legal analyst - am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance.

After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said, 'We think he probably did it. We just didn't think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.'

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.

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 am not saying Rubin Carter was guilty. I am saying he was very likely guilty.

There are more important things than finding the murderer. And justice is a fine word, but it is sometimes difficult to say exactly what one means by it. In my opinion, the important thing is to clear the innocent. - Hercule Poirot

Most people fancy themselves innocent of those crimes of which they cannot be convicted.

In former days, everyone found the assumption of innocence so easy; today we find fatally easy the assumption of guilt.

The onus of proof lies on the plaintiff.

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.