Coffin v. United States
Primary source
Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). Edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.
Background
1895 United States Supreme Court case
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes in a landmark decision.
F. A. Coffin and Percival B. Coffin, plaintiffs in error , and A. S. Reed had been charged with aiding and abetting the former president of the Indianapolis National Bank, Theodore P. Haughey, in misdemeanor bank fraud between January 1, 1891, and July 26, 1893.
It is a complex case with a 50-count indictment. But the most interesting aspect is commentary by the Court regarding presumption of innocence:
The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt .' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.
In the decision, the Court then goes on to detail the complete legal history of presumed innocence.
See also
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coffin_v._United_States&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: See also")
]
Further reading
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coffin_v._United_States&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Further reading")
]
- Helgeson, Vicki S.; Shaver, Kelly G. (1990). "Presumption of Innocence: Congruence Bias Induced and Overcome". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 20 (4): 276–302. doi :10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00412.x .
- Volokh, Alexander (1997). "n Guilty Men" . University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 146 (1). The University of Pennsylvania Law Review: 173–216. doi :10.2307/3312707 . JSTOR . Archived from the original on February 7, 2004.
References
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coffin_v._United_States&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: References")
]
- ↑ "Coffin v. U.S. (1895) | Definition" . docmckee.com. Retrieved October 14, 2024.
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coffin_v._United_States&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Works related to Coffin v. United States at Wikisource
- Text of Coffin v. United States, U.S. 432 (1895) is available from: Justia Library of Congress
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coffin_v._United_States&oldid=1330174540 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
Coffin v. United States
Add languages Add topic
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recording worthless checks as cash assets on books and in report
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.