The Leave No One Behind Project United in Service Committed in Care Leaving No One Behind

You can be charged, convicted and sent to prison based solely on an accusation? 

Imagine a courtroom where the scales of justice are tipped before the trial even begins. This is the reality faced by many accused individuals due to recent court decisions that undermine the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Take, for example, the case of Speller v. Commonwealth (69 Va. App. 378, 388 [2018]). In this case, the court allowed the assumption that the accused was lying simply because they were defending themselves. This unfair presumption was further reinforced by Kelley v. Commonwealth (69 Va. App. 617, 626 [2019]), where inconsistencies in the accuser’s story were brushed aside without question. Adding to the problem, Wilson v. Commonwealth (46 Va. App. 73, 87 [2005]) showed that a conviction could be based on nothing more than the accuser's word. Together, these decisions create a scenario where the accused is presumed guilty before their side of the story is even heard.

Now picture the daunting reality for someone fighting to prove their innocence in such a system. Despite the courts’ claims that “..It is not sufficient that the evidence creates “a suspicion or probability of guilt,” but must go further and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of guilt. Nor where a fact is equally susceptible to two interpretations, one of which is consistent with the interpretation of the accuser, may the judge [or judges] arbitrarily adopt that interpretation which incriminates the accused.  Yet, the reality is that the accused faces an almost insurmountable burden of proving innocence when the system allows for the accuser's word alone to secure a conviction. 

This challenge is compounded by the difficulty of overturning a conviction on appeal. In Johnson v. Commonwealth (58 Va. App. 303, 315 [2011]) and Lambert v. Commonwealth (70 Va. App. 740, 759 [2019]), it’s clear that overturning a conviction requires proving that the testimony was absolutely unbelievable, a bar set so high it is rarely met. This system not only distorts the basic principle of "innocent until proven guilty" but also paves the way for false accusations to cause real harm. 

 The implications of these legal precedents extend beyond individual cases. They challenge the very principles that underpin the criminal justice system and the protections it is supposed to offer to all citizens. If the system is perceived as fundamentally unfair, it risks losing public trust and undermining the rule of law. Those who disagree with these concerns may find themselves, or someone they care about, unjustly caught in a system that prioritizes conviction over fairness.

The concerns raised by these precedents are not merely theoretical. They reflect real risks and potential injustices that can affect anyone accused of a crime, particularly in cases where the evidence is limited, non-existent, or contradictory. The system’s bias against the accused, combined with the acceptance of uncorroborated testimony and the difficulty of challenging credibility on appeal, creates a dangerous environment where wrongful convictions can occur. These issues must be addressed to ensure that the criminal justice system remains fair, just, and true to its foundational principles.