The Cop and the Professor
Busted! Where was the presumption of innocence when Cambridge police nabbed Henry Louis Gates on his own front porch las summer?
by Charles Ogletree
The presumption of innocence. These four words are echoed by judges in state and federal courts and by defense lawyers and prosecutors in opening and closing arguments probably every day. The concept is the bedrock legal standard in our criminal justice system, and jurors are admonished to set aside bias and to determine fairly the fate of an individual facing the possible loss of property, liberty, or life. It is a concept embedded in our law, and a foundation for protecting citizens from the awesome power of government.
For centuries, Americans have aspired to a justice system in which courts, legislators, and public officials are uniformly committed to the presumption of innocence. The essential point is that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Whether arrested, charged, or indicted, the government must prove its case against the individual beyond a reasonable doubt. Suspicion by police, or witnesses, and an arrest based upon the reports of a victim or eyewitness are not enough. The legal standard requires the presumption of innocence remain unless and until a judge or jury concludes that the person charged is actually guilty of a crime.
The presumption of guilt. These four words reveal their true meaning as events actually transpire. On July 16, 2009, at 17 Ware Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard and renowned expert on issues of racial equality, found himself at once accused and presumed guilty of breaking into his own home by Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley.
On that day, Sgt. Crowley responded to a call about a possible break-in. Eyewitnesses informed police that one suspect might have been Hispanic but provided no information indicating that an African American was involved; some expressed doubt as to whether a break-in was in fact occurring, speculating that perhaps a resident was simply struggling to open his own door. Professor Gates was approached by Sgt. Crowley shortly after entering his home. After informing the officer that he lived at 17 Ware Street and producing both his Harvard University identification and his Massachusetts driver’s license with his photo and address on it, Gates was arrested. He was, to put it simply, presumed to be guilty of a crime rather than presumed to be a resident in his own home telling the truth about who he was. The obvious question is why.
While the presumption of innocence is fundamental to our system of government, it was clearly absent during this encounter. Again, the question is why.
My aim is to ensure that, whatever point of view you have about the events of that day, you also understand that issues of race, class, and justice continue to challenge our nation. The incident was an eye-opener, and it presents us with an opportunity to reassess where we are today.
As Professor Gates’ attorney, I present one person’s perspective on the matter. However, my vantage point as Professor Gates’ attorney is but part of the story. My conclusions are based on decades of experience in courtrooms, classrooms, and public and private forums. While a student at Harvard Law School in the criminal clinic, I represented indigent clients. When I graduated from law school, I worked for eight years as a criminal lawyer with the District of Columbia Public Defender Service. My clients were charged with crimes from petty larceny to murder. Throughout my career I have addressed the topics of race, class, and justice with the view of proposing ways to generate more dialogue and understanding and less fear and instill more respect between citizens and law enforcement. My goal is that when it comes to the relationships among minority communities, police, and other legal entities and institutions, there should be no conflict between the principles of security and liberty. They should be able to coexist fairly. My aim is not necessarily to change minds, although that would be beneficial, but to open minds to the reality of how problems of race, class, and justice collided (as they do routinely elsewhere) on an otherwise bright, sunny, and beautiful day in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The issues of race, class, and crime were ever present in this incident and in reactions to it.
The arrest created a tidal wave of perspectives on police accountability, racial profiling, and the responsibility of individual citizens to respect the role of police officers in preventing crime. The event set off a blistering series of exchanges on television, in newspapers, on radio shows and blogs. Perhaps the most surprising response came from President Barack Obama, whose offhand comments during a press conference offered support for his friend Professor Gates and accused the Cambridge Police Department of “acting stupidly” for arresting someone in their own home. President Obama’s response and others are as significant as the event itself. Professor Gates’ encounter with the police was not unprecedented.
This incident speaks to more than the arrest of one man. It presents a forceful statement about the need to examine our criminal justice system to ensure that fairness, not power, is the currency of our system. When we move from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt, we diminish our sense of community and undermine our democratic ideals. The race and class dimensions of the Gates arrest are especially troubling in the context of experiences other successful, prosperous, and noteworthy African American men (who are by no means alone in experiencing problems of racial profiling) grapple with a range of encounters not only with police but with countless everyday citizens and found themselves being judged by the color of their skin rather than “the content of their character.” Ultimately, if we are to move forward as a nation, we must examine not only what happened to Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., on July 16, 2009, but we must also examine what we can and must do, individually and collectively, to develop a justice system that is truly committed to the presumption of innocence.
This article is excerpted from The Presumption of Guilt by Charles Ogletree. Copyright (c) 2010 by the author and reprinted by permission of Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited.