Colorado Exoneration Argumentative Essay

In the Supreme Court case, Nelson v. Colorado, the judgment revolves around the constitutionality of the Colorado Exoneration Act. This act stated that monetary fines paid due to conviction charges can only be returned to the exonerated individual if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are innocent of the accused crime. The constitutionality of this law was debated and in question in regards to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. I concur in the recent Supreme Court decision that the Colorado Exoneration Act should be ruled as unconstitutional. I am in assent with this recent decision that the current Colorado law is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects United States citizen’s right to a fair trial, undermines the legitimacy and authority of a criminal court proceeding, and also contradicts the precedent established in various courts that …show more content…
This precedent, established by Coffin v. United States, asserts that all persons accused of committing a crime are “innocent until proven guilty” and are only found guilty if evidence makes one's guilt appear to be “beyond a reasonable doubt” ("Coffin v. United States", 2017). Additionally, a precedent was set in In re Winship that stated that the presumption of innocence was among some of the "essentials of due process and fair treatment" ("In re Winship", 2017). The Colorado Exoneration Act as it currently stands, essentially requires defendants to prove they are innocent in order to receive their money back, which by nature makes an assumption that the defendant is guilty, even though the court has found this to not be true. A requirement that requires individuals to prove their innocence is clearly contradictory to the common precedent of assuming individuals are innocent until proven