By: Frances Prizzia | Sex Crimes

Ever since the Harvey Weinstein accusations broke, we have been inundated with people coming forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against powerful people. Perhaps most significantly, last week saw allegation against Alabama Senatorial Candidate Roy Moore and sitting United States Senator Al Franken. I have been struck by how people’s politics have seemed to inform the gravity and credibility they attach to the accusations against these politicians, but that is a topic for another day. Today, I would like to talk about a common misnomer that I hear in the context of allegations that play out in the court of public opinion. Namely, when people are giving credibility to allegations made outside of a court of law, I often hear people who are coming to the defense of the accused insisting that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that the allegations have not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

People in particular like to use this as a rejoinder to me, “aren’t you a criminal defense attorney? What happened to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence?” Let me make this as simple as I can from the outset, the standards of proof and presumptions we employ when the stakes are depriving a human being of their liberty are very different than the standards I use to make decisions in day to day life and in deciding who I think is fit for the honor of public office.

While I certainly appreciate some of my friends new found insistence on and appreciation for proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence, the argument that these standards are not even used in the legal system outside of criminal trials.

In a civil trial, where hundreds of millions of dollars can be at stake, sometimes even billions, the standard is simply the preponderance of the evidence, meaning whichever side has convinced you that there case is the better one wins.

None of the public figures being accused (other than Bill Cosby) currently have their freedom at stake. Roy Moore and Al Franken have nothing more than their jobs (or desired job in Moore’s case at stake). Should any of these people ever be charged criminally (as it seems may be a possibility for Harvey Weinstein), he would be entitled to the same Constitutional protections as any other criminal defendant, but that does not mean he or any of the others are entitled to these protections in the court of public opinion.

Is it reasonable to have some doubts about Moore or Franken’s culpability or the extent thereof? Sure. These are allegations about old conduct and politics are most certainly at play. But I am not suggesting these allegations are sufficient to send either man to jail. I do believe both are serious enough that I would not vote for either.

Search Our Site
Our Newport Beach
5000 Birch Street, Suite 3000
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Phone: (714) 362-0157

Why Choose
Frances Prizzia Criminal Defense Lawyers


Client Centered Approach

Our clients are our priority, we listen & have your best interests in mind. Our philosophy is that crime is simply a symptom of a bigger issue that should be addressed.

Reputation by Excellence

"Top 100 Trial Lawyers" by the National Trial Lawyers and Clients' Choice by Avvo.


Over 17+ Years of Criminal Defense Experience on your side.

Innovative & Determined

We think outside the box and never leave a stone unturned.

You're Not Just Another Client

You're in a difficult situation that requires attention. Our boutique legal team walks you through the legal process so you don't feel lost.


We are available 24/7 for emergencies & offer free confidential consultations.
fill out the form
Request Your Free
Confidential Consultation

"*" indicates required fields

Full Name*
Required Fields *
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.