Coffin v. United States
15 S. Ct. 394, 156 U.S. 432, 1895 U.S. LEXIS 2150 (1895)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The presumption of innocence in a criminal trial is a distinct legal principle from the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A trial court's refusal to give a requested jury instruction on the presumption of innocence is reversible error, even if the court provides a thorough instruction on reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Theodore P. Haughey was the president of the Indianapolis National Bank.
- Haughey misapplied the bank's funds by causing a large sum to be paid out on a check drawn by the Indianapolis Cabinet Company.
- At the time of the payment, the Indianapolis Cabinet Company had no funds in the bank and was insolvent, a fact Haughey was aware of.
- As a result of this transaction, the sum paid out became lost to the bank.
- H. P. Coffin and other individuals, who were not officers or employees of the bank, were accused of knowingly aiding and abetting Haughey in this wilful misapplication of bank funds.
- In a separate matter, Haughey allegedly caused entries to be made in the bank's books that accurately recorded fraudulent transactions he had authorized.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Haughey, Coffin, and others in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, a federal trial court.
- The indictment charged Haughey with misapplication of bank funds and false entries, and charged Coffin and others with aiding and abetting.
- At trial, the defendants requested a jury instruction on the presumption of innocence, which the trial court refused to give.
- The trial court did provide a lengthy instruction on the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The jury found the defendants guilty on several counts.
- The defendants (as plaintiffs in error) brought the case before the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error to review the judgment of the trial court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's refusal to instruct a jury on the presumption of innocence constitute reversible error when the court has already provided a comprehensive instruction on the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
Yes. A jury instruction on the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not a legally sufficient substitute for a requested instruction on the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is an instrument of proof, constituting evidence in favor of the accused, whereas the doctrine of reasonable doubt is the resulting condition of mind that jurors must reach after considering all evidence. The court's reasoning is that the two principles are fundamentally distinct. The presumption of innocence is a conclusion drawn by law that establishes a defendant's innocence at the outset of a trial and must be overcome by evidence. It is one of the 'instruments of proof' that the jury must consider. In contrast, reasonable doubt is the 'result of the proof'; it is the standard by which the jury weighs the evidence presented. The court explains this as a cause-and-effect relationship: the presumption is a cause contributing to the body of evidence, while the jury's potential reasonable doubt is the effect of evaluating that evidence. To refuse an instruction on the presumption is to exclude a piece of legal evidence from the jury's consideration, which is a fundamental error not cured by a correct instruction on the standard for weighing the evidence that was admitted. Additionally, the court found error in the trial court's instructions on false entries, clarifying that an entry which truthfully records an actual, albeit fraudulent, transaction is not a 'false entry' under the relevant statute.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the presumption of innocence as an independent evidentiary principle and a fundamental right in American criminal law, distinct from the reasonable doubt standard. It establishes that a defendant is entitled to a specific jury instruction on the presumption if requested, ensuring jurors begin deliberations with the correct legal framework that the accused starts with a clean slate. This holding prevents the conflation of the two concepts and reinforces that the presumption is not merely a procedural formality but substantive 'evidence' in favor of the accused. The case has had a lasting impact, cementing the 'innocent until proven guilty' instruction as a standard and non-negotiable component of criminal jury charges across the United States.
