HARDING INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Fourth District Judge Ray Harding Jr.'s arrest on drug charges stunned Utah
County last week.

People don't expect to see sitting judges arrested and brought before the
bar in a jail uniform and shackles.

Harding is accused of having cocaine, heroin and barbiturates in his
Highland home. He is out on $10,000 bail while he awaits formal charges.

The state's chief justice has already relieved him of judicial duties until
his legal situation is worked out. But some people aren't waiting that
long. On Internet message boards and around office water coolers are those
who have already convicted Harding based on what they've read in the
newspaper or seen on television.

While such speculation is natural, we think it is inappropriate. We
shouldn't rush to judgment on an accused man, even a well-known jurist in
Utah County.

This does not mean that we do not take drug abuse seriously, nor that we
think people in high places should get a pass or be treated with kid gloves
when they do wrong.

But we think Harding deserves the same respect accorded any American
accused of a crime: To be considered innocent until proved guilty.

The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of the American judicial
system. Unlike French courts, which consider the accused guilty from the
beginning, American courts hold the opposite view. The burden is on the
prosecutor to prove guilt, either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a
preponderance of evidence, depending on whether it is a criminal or civil case.

It's a legal doctrine that can annoy armchair jurists. Someone can commit a
crime in front of witnesses, be photographed in the process of doing it and
even admit he did it. But when he has his day in court, he is presumed
innocent, and the prosecution must present a case that meets the required
legal standard for proof.

It is a high bar for prosecutors. And in some cases, someone who may appear
guilty can walk out a free man because prosecutors didn't sufficiently make
their case. The O.J. Simpson murder trial and President Clinton's
impeachment trial on perjury charges are classic examples of that.

The presumption of innocence also requires jurors to withhold judgment
until all the facts are presented and an intelligent decision can be made.

Presuming innocence protects the accused from being railroaded for crimes
they didn't commit, and it assures that even the guilty have proper legal
defenses.

In Harding's case, all we know is that he was arrested and police found
drugs in his home. Purportedly, the drugs belonged to the judge but this
has not yet been clearly established. There are gaps in the story, and
prosecutors haven't yet made a formal accusation.

Harding's leave from the bench is required by law, given the possibility
that he can be charged with a criminal offense. The suspension, per se, is
not evidence that Harding is guilty, but a precautionary administrative
move that avoids jeopardizing cases he would have heard. Harding continues
to receive a salary.

The only difference between Harding's case and the average person accused
of a drug crime is that Harding was detained in another county, and
prosecutors and judges with no connection to Harding's judicial district
will be handling the matter. Those moves do not amount to preferential
treatment; they ensure both Harding's physical safety and his right to a
fair and impartial trial.

We think Harding, as any defendant, should have his day in court and be
allowed the same presumption of innocence.