Innocent until proven guilty is the basis for a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that was announced on Wednesday and which confirmed a court decision from the year 2019 that Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co. trial.
Carl Sadler suffered a back enlargement and amputation of his pinky finger in 2012 while working as a maintenance mechanic at the Philadelphia-based subsidiary The Coca-Cola Co. and was jailed in 2013 for crimes not disclosed in court documents Carl Sadler v. Workers & # 39; Compensation Appeal Board, filed in the East Division of the State Supreme Court in Philadelphia.
In 2015, Coca-Cola filed a suspension of benefits ", arguing that (his) benefits should be suspended because he spent 525 days in prison before his sentencing and because he was credited with having served that time at his sentencing. January 22, 201
In two appeals, Sadler argued that state law provides for imprisonment for imprisonment – imprisonment because he could not afford bail – does not meet the "conviction after conviction" condition that allows for compensation benefits according to documents. of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg on and agreed with Sadler that "under the simple language of (state law) is imprisonment that occurs before a conviction for the ability to fulfill the guarantee is not a "period during which the worker is imprisoned after a conviction", and such an interpretation would be incompatible with the basic principles behind the law (workers' compensation) and its purpose. "
In the most recent appeal, Coca-Cola argued that the Commonwealth Court's decision, under Pennsylvania and federal constitutions," results in an unequal application of the law "and argues" that the Commonwealth Court's interpretation, if correct, illicit creates two classes of claims that have been convicted of crimes: those who continue to receive benefits and those who do not. "
The Supreme Court of the State, when ruling that laws on equal protection should not be applied, wrote that" [b] causes an accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, imprisonment in advance is completely irrelevant to the question of guilt ", which would apply to a person imprisoned after conviction, and “thus imprisonment in advance is not equivalent to voluntarily leaving the workforce.