Reader Photo: In defense of the Baltimore cops on trial for Freddie Gray’s death

To the editor: In referencing the upcoming trials of more police officers in Baltimore, The Times states that each of the defendants “must defend his or her actions on May 12, 2015,” the day Freddie Gray suffered a mortal injury while under arrest. (“Don’t mistake Edward Nero’s acquittal in the Freddie Gray case for vindication of the Baltimore police,” editorial, May 23)

What an astonishing statement for a paper that presumes to know the Constitution. Your statement most certainly presumes the defendants to be guilty if they have to prove their innocence.

As we all know (or should know), it is the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt and not the accused’s obligation to prove innocence. In all cases the defendants have nothing to do if the prosecution does not prove its case.

Shame on The Times for presuming guilt before all facts have been presented to the court.

Robert Braley, Bakersfield

..

To the editor: You say acquittal is not vindication. Does it then follow in your logic that conviction is not guilt?

I expected your editorial to lay on some serious criticism of the prosecutors in Baltimore. They charged too quickly, without adequate investigation in order to quell the emotions of the citizenry. Now they are receiving the consequences and stand 0-for-2 in the trials.

At least the prosecutors in Ferguson, Mo., did their due diligence and got to the truth so that no frivolous charges were filed.

David R. Gillespie, Bonita, Calif.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook