Court of Appeals of Georgia Upholds Convictions Despite Prosecutor’s Misstatement of the Presumption of Innocence

It is well established that “[t]he presumption of the innocence of an accused attends him throughout the trial, and has relation to every fact that must be established in order to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 55 (1899). So, what happens when the prosecutor incorrectly defines the presumption of innocence, but the judge correctly defines it? That was the question addressed by the Court of Appeals of Georgia in its recent opinion in Williams v. State, 2021 WL 220647 (Ga.App. 2021).

In Williams, Barry Williams was convicted of two counts of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and one count each of reckless driving, obstruction of an officer, driving without a license, speeding, operating an unregistered vehicle, failure to maintain lane, driving without proof of insurance, failure to stop at a stop sign, and a turn signal violation. After he was convicted, Williams appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the prosecutor improperly instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence as follows:

When the defendant walked into this courtroom and before the evidence was presented, he was presumed innocent. But at this point now that all the evidence is in, all of the evidence you heard from our officer, all the evidence that the State had to present on this case is in, it is unrebutted at this point. We have all the evidence. He no longer has that presumption of innocence.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia agreed with Williams that “[t]he prosecutor’s statements on the presumption of innocence misstate the law.” The court, however, held that

During the jury charge, the trial court instructed the jury that the law was to come from the court and charged the jury on the burden of proof and presumption of innocence, stating that Williams was presumed innocent until proven guilty. The jury was presumed to follow the trial court’s instructions, and Williams has presented nothing to overcome this presumption….Considering the trial court’s subsequent instructions, and the evidence against Williams, we find any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

-CM