Talk:Coffin v. United States

Summary

This case needs an adequate ruling summary. The one currently in place is a poor substitute, clearly visibly having been taken directly from the middle of a sentence of the opinion quote! and quite god-awfully so, it's not even a full sentence. I'm going to make the paragraph English, but someone needs to properly summarize the actual case ruling, in addition the existing remark on the precedential establishment of the Presumption of Innocence of the accused. 68.110.212.162 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"the most interesting aspect"

According to whom? This article is far from encyclopedic. -- 98.108.206.28 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coffin v. United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040207224325/http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/guilty.htm to http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/guilty.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

a possible issue - "established"?

The lead says this case "established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes". The presumption of innocence article says it is a much older idea, which is surely correct - certainly all the nations which use presumption of innocence in their legal systems did not derive it from a late-19th-century US Supreme Court case.

And the text below the lead seems to say that the Supreme Court recognized the presumption of innocence as already part of the law. So it appears that the SC "reaffirmed" the presumption rather than "establishing" it.

So what *is* the importance of the case? Did the Supreme Court strengthen the presumption of innocence? Is it that the SC required the presumption of innocence to be explicitly stated to the jury? Or something else. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)