Presumption of Innocence is not directly enshrined in the US constitution. It is implied by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. However, it is acceptable practice in the US for local jurisdictions to relax aspects of the Presumption of Innocence. For example, for rape cases in some jurisdictions, it is not necessary to address the mens rea.
"It is not that you are innocent until proven guilty as many believe. It is that you are assumed guilty because of the assertion made and until your presumption of innocence prevails your protestation of innocence is simply the challenge to the prosecution to prove its case...With the presumption is innocence you do not have to prove innocence as it is a given. The burden of proving otherwise is upon the party making the assertion."
So the Presumption of Innocence is simply placing the burden of proof on the accuser and therefore any lightening of the burden of proof is effectively an erosion of the Presumption of Innocence.
Is it really a right if local jurisdictions can simply decide to erode it?
Now, certainly there is another side to the story. The argument made in rape and sexual assault cases is that, "Of course, the defendant is going to claim consensuality." The position that mens rea is impractical in cases of rape and sexual assault is not entirely unreasonable. My point is that the commonly held view that US citizens have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty isn't so assured and cut and dry as most of us believe.
http://tipmra.com/new_tipmra/presumption_of_innocence.htm
"It is not that you are innocent until proven guilty as many believe. It is that you are assumed guilty because of the assertion made and until your presumption of innocence prevails your protestation of innocence is simply the challenge to the prosecution to prove its case...With the presumption is innocence you do not have to prove innocence as it is a given. The burden of proving otherwise is upon the party making the assertion."
So the Presumption of Innocence is simply placing the burden of proof on the accuser and therefore any lightening of the burden of proof is effectively an erosion of the Presumption of Innocence.
Is it really a right if local jurisdictions can simply decide to erode it?
Now, certainly there is another side to the story. The argument made in rape and sexual assault cases is that, "Of course, the defendant is going to claim consensuality." The position that mens rea is impractical in cases of rape and sexual assault is not entirely unreasonable. My point is that the commonly held view that US citizens have a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty isn't so assured and cut and dry as most of us believe.