The Hallmark of Our Justice System: Innocent Until Proven Guilty

January 08, 2011

In the United States, our justice system is premised on a fundamental principle: those accused of crime are deemed innocent until they are proven guilty. The bar for establishing guilt is high -- jurors are expected to only convict an individual accused of a crime if the prosecutor has proved guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

At times though, this expectation contradicts the assumptions of those who are asked to serve as members of the jury. For some it is easy to assume that by the time an individual has been arrested by the police and put on trial by a prosecutor, that accused person must have done something wrong. When this underlying assumption is allowed to play any role in a jury's decision, the consequences may change the life of an innocent person forever.

Consider the recent case of Dale Helmig. In 1996, a jury found Mr. Helmig guilty of killing Norma Helmig, his mother, and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He served more than 14 years of this sentence before he was released last December on bond, when a judge found that his conviction had resulted from a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

From the beginning of the investigation, the local sheriff investigating the case believed that Mr. Helmig was involved in his mother's death and disappearance. The sheriff thought Mr. Helmig knew too many details and suspected foul play before there was sufficient evidence to indicate as much, ignoring the fact that a son might be familiar enough with his mother's routines and practices to recognize when something is amiss.

The prosecution had no physical evidence linking Mr. Helmig to his mother's death, but argued instead that he had motive, opportunity, suspicious behavior and "guilty knowledge" that only one who had committed this crime could have. For instance, Mr. Helmig knew that his mother's car keys would be in her purse before they were discovered, and knew that she would be found in her nightgown.

Mr. Helmig's defense lawyer argued that the state could not prove this had been a murder. The autopsy results had been inconclusive and the attorney argued that she could have died from a drug overdose before someone placed her in the water where she was ultimately found.

The defense attorney didn't address key elements of the prosecution's case. Building on the theory that no murder had occurred, the defense failed to offer plausible alternative suggestions as to who may have killed Norma Helmig. When the prosecution argued that Mr. Helmig and his mother had a contentious relationship, the defense did not present any evidence to refute this claim.

Clearly the defense strategy was ineffective; with no physical evidence, Mr. Helmig was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.

More than 14 years later, an appeals court has given Mr. Helmig new hope and at least temporary freedom. According to the Kansas City Star, DeKalb County Senior Circuit Judge Warren McElwain found that "prosecutors presented jurors with false and misleading evidence at Helmig's trial and that his lawyer had pursued a "hare-brained" defense and had failed to competently represent Helmig."

The judge seemed to have no qualms in assigning blame to the attorneys in the case. Certainly, if the prosecutors intentionally presented false and misleading evidence or if the defense attorney failed to provide competent representation, both played a role in preventing justice from prevailing.

However, ultimately the jury was responsible for hearing both sides of the case and reaching a verdict. A jury is only to convict if the prosecution demonstrates guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, it is hard to understand how the jury might have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but for some degree of bias in favor of the police and prosecutors.

It is impossible to know what might have gone through the minds of the jurors when deciding to convict Mr. Helmig. However, this case along with the extraordinary decision of the appellate court provides an important reminder to anyone asked to serve on a jury: law enforcement officers and prosecutors can be wrong. Jurors are empanelled for the purpose of determining whether the prosecutors can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and must examine the claims carefully to avoid a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

Article provided by Paul Cramm
Visit us at www.kansascity-criminal-attorney.com