Andrew Fastow Quotes

It's perfectly obvious that somebody's responsible and somebody's innocent. Otherwise it [justice] makes no sense at all.

Believing a person deserves a defence is not the same as doing anything in your power to get him off scot-free.

If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

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

Whether a man is guilty or innocent, we have to find that out by due process of law.

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 believe in my heart Simpson is guilty.

Just because you're convicted in a court room doesn't mean you're guilty of something.

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.

While there was clear evidence that the dad was innocent in 'Miracle,' in 'Heart Blackened,' I was in a situation of 'having to' prove somebody's innocence. So when I stood trial as Hee-jung, things felt awkward and unfamiliar for me.

I set my heart out to prove my innocence by any means necessary.

You can't charge somebody with something they have not done.

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

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

The law is agnostic about truth.

I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it.

All we can do is keep going up against then as long as Ray is alive because when he dies it will not be possible to establish the truth of his innocence in a court of law.

I have no better way of judging guilt or innocence than anyone else.

Justice can only be dispensed when you have all the facts in front of you.

I don't think the law exists to arrive at the truth. If it did, we wouldn't have exclusionary rules, we wouldn't have presumptions of innocence, we wouldn't have proof beyond reasonable doubt. There's an enormous difference between the role of truth in law and the role of truth in science. In law, truth is one among many goals.

People are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some may remember, if you have good memories, that there used to be a concept in Anglo-American law called a presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now that's so deep in history that there's no point even bringing it up, but it did once exist.

I am not guilty, I am innocent.