Discussion: failure to appear in criminal court should be treated as a rebutable presumption of guilt.?

Question

I notice that some guys out on bail fail to appear as they promised for their trial.

My suggestion: if you fail to appear, the presumption of guilt changes from innocent to guilty absent a showing that your failure to appear was uncontrollable [hospitalized or jailed elsewhere].

Any discussion?

The question is not about how such fugitives are treated now, but rather about how we (the law) should treat them. Would the change proposed result in a lesser proportion of bonded out characters failing to show up?

Please recall that I said "rebutable presumption", not "found guilty". Rebutable means that the defense still has the opportunity to prove innocence, HOWEVER, the burden of proof would now be on the defense instead of the prosecution.

Related notion: When a defendent flees, the evidence sometimes "evaporates" in that witnesses die or lose their memory. Perhaps those witnesses should be deposed immediately after the defendent fails to show and their testimony recorded so that this no longer happens.

Keep trying. I'm looking for more substantial discussion here.

still not much substance. Well, maybe it isn't an issue of interest?

Answer 1

The standard is that the prosecution must show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We don't shift that burden, but we can draw inferences from what the defendant does before trial. Failing to appear for a hearing could be characterized as fleeing justice, an indication of a guilty conscience. The DA is free to argue that along with everything else in the case, but the burden of proof stays with the government.

EDIT - understand your question, disagree with shifting the burden. Once we start to erode guilty until proven innocent, we are headed down the slippery slope of oppression.

Answer 2

Umm...no, you still have a right to your day in court and a full trial.

Once found, you will not be going anywhere until your new trial date and you will also get your day in court for a failure to appear or failure to comply charge.

And yes, the Crown can use the failure to appear as an argument in their case against you, but nothing should result in an automatic conviction.

Answer 3

Noone should be presumed to be guilty without a trial. There are cases where people have been tried "in absentia" because they failed to appear. They were found guilty and are subject to sentencing if ever captured.

Answer 4

Like a Forfit!
We need a Lawyer to answer, There are probably many variables to this!