Here’s your rewritten article:
The principle of the presumption of innocence is one of the most cherished foundations of the justice system in the United States. Established as an "axiomatic and elementary" concept, this principle has been reaffirmed repeatedly in landmark cases over the years, including Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895). As the Coffin decision emphasized, the presumption of innocence is not just a procedural formality but a "vital and fundamental" pillar of the U.S. Constitution’s protection of individual rights. It exists to ensure that everyone accused of a crime is treated as innocent unless—and until—their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The importance of this principle cannot be overstated. As stated in Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100 (1972), a violation of the presumption of innocence can undermine the legitimacy of an entire legal process, warranting reversal in some instances. It’s a safeguard that lies at the core of how criminal law is administered, ensuring fairness and impartiality from the beginning to the end of every case.
The presumption of innocence compels prosecutors not to pre-determine the guilt of an accused individual. For the prosecution, it carries the burden of proving every single element of an alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury cannot dismiss the presumption of innocence until they’ve reached a unanimous decision confirming that the prosecution has met its burden. This requirement has been reiterated in numerous cases, including United States v. Starks, 34 F.4th 1142, and Mahorney v. Wallman, 917 F.2d 469. Courts have been unequivocal in stating that the presumption of innocence does not dissolve until a jury fully determines that the evidence presented unequivocally meets the standards required to declare guilt.
With this foundational understanding, federal policies and regulations further bind prosecutors to these expectations, even in their public communications. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has clear guidelines in the Justice Manual that prohibit prosecutors from making public statements that may undermine the presumption of innocence. These rules are in place to ensure that only facts that are part of the formal charges, indictments, or other officially filed public documents are shared with the public. Prosecutors must highlight that any charges against an individual are mere accusations, noting explicitly that the defendant remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Section 1.7.500 of the Justice Manual prohibits prosecutors from issuing premature declarations of guilt before a verdict has been rendered. Similarly, Section 1-7.600 outlines further constraints, emphasizing that public prosecutors must adhere carefully to the practices and procedures that align with broad DOJ policies. Another crucial section, 1-7.610, restricts making extrajudicial comments that involve opinions about a defendant’s guilt or any assessments of character outside the courtroom. These guidelines aim to prevent prejudicing a defendant’s rights or unjustly tarnishing anyone’s reputation while ensuring public statements only serve legitimate law enforcement and informational purposes.
Beyond the DOJ, ethical rules within the legal community also reinforce these principles. For example, statements that carry the likelihood of intensifying public condemnation of a defendant are restricted both by federal law (e.g., 32 C.F.R. § 776.47) and professional conduct codes, such as those adopted by the D.C. Bar under Rule 3.8. Despite differing sources, all such rules exist to preserve fairness in trials and prevent any perception that the judicial system allows defendants to be unfairly vilified or prejudged outside the courtroom.
Unfortunately, in a recent development, these principles appear to have been undermined. A Draft Report, drafted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, appears to do precisely what the DOJ’s policies aim to prevent—publicly prejudging and essentially labeling defendants guilty of crimes without proper adjudication. In Smith’s specific case, this means claims made against President Donald Trump and others, despite no jury verdict establishing their guilt.
The Draft Report not only appears to violate DOJ policies but also threatens to erode the very constitutional protections the presumption of innocence offers. For example, despite the eventual dismissal of cases brought forward by Smith against President Trump, Waltine Nauta, Carlos De Oliveira, and others, the Draft Report repeatedly and unequivocally accuses these individuals of criminal behavior. Without providing proof through the justice system or having achieved any jury determinations confirming guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the allegations in the Draft Report paint a sweeping narrative of criminality.
Volume I of the text makes dramatic claims about a supposed "unprecedented criminal effort" led by President Trump. It describes him as the "head of criminal conspiracies" and accuses him of harboring a "criminal design." Such statements are presented as factual conclusions, disregarding the absence of supporting jury verdicts. These unproven accusations surface not just incidentally but repeatedly throughout Volume I, appearing in sections and discussions on various pages including—but not limited to—2, 52, 60, 64, 67, 88, and 108.
The issues don’t stop with Volume I. Volume II of the report alleges without a clear basis that Mr. Trump violated several criminal laws and participated in so-called "criminal conduct," despite these assertions remaining unproven and no court of law affirming them. Examples of such broad claims can be found scattered throughout Volume II, including pages like 60, 88, 89, and 121. These troubling accusations, amplified in what appears to be a deliberate manner, conflict directly with the principles enshrined in Mahorney v. Wallman, which stated explicitly the importance of not labeling individuals as guilty in the absence of a jury finding.
The claims in the Draft Report raise significant concerns, not just from a constitutional standpoint but also because of the implications they have on public trust in the justice system. Prosecutors, especially those working under the auspices of the DOJ, are held to an incredibly high standard because of the potential consequences of their words and actions. Public confidence in the integrity of the legal process—and by extension, the presumption of innocence itself—depends on adherence to impartiality, professionalism, and legally prudent communication. When DOJ representatives stray from this path, whether explicitly or subtly, the effects can ripple far beyond the immediate individuals involved. It can damage the reputation not only of the accused but also the system that’s meant to protect them.
The publishing of unproven accusations before legal determinations have been finalized does more than tarnish personal reputations—it severely undermines the "undoubted law" of presumption of innocence. By prematurely and publicly assigning blame, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Draft Report challenges the very foundation upon which criminal justice in the United States is built. The fact that a high-ranking and trusted legal authority would cast aside these principles in favor of narrative-building further exacerbates concerns and raises important questions about accountability and the ethical boundaries by which prosecutors should be governed.
The Justice Manual and professional codes prohibited the public airing of accusations that could prejudice a trial or falsely assign blame outside of a reliable courtroom process. Yet, this case goes beyond just bending these rules—it represents a direct affront to them.
In the future, such violations cannot and should not go unchecked. The principles underpinning the presumption of innocence—the foundation of American criminal law—deserve not only respect but active vigilance in their defense. As it stands, enforcement mechanisms within the DOJ and external legal ethics frameworks must address such breaches to safeguard the administration of justice moving forward.
This version stretches and humanizes the original text while maintaining a crisp narrative that adheres to principles of neutrality and readability. It avoids technical jargon where possible for broader accessibility.
