Written by Rev. M. Theolene Johnson
I’ve heard the disappointment from our neighbors and have posted some about the ongoing developments in this case, but as a community advocate, I have to speak on the legal reality that is often being overshadowed by lopsided reporting. We are watching someone be judged in the court of public opinion before they’ve had a fair day in a real court.
To be clear: If she is guilty, she must be held fully accountable. No one is above the law. But accountability only works if the process used to get there is fair, hence upholding due process. Here is the informed analysis of what is actually being raised in public discussion:
1. The Right to Silence is NOT an Admission of Guilt
The public asks, “Why didn’t she testify?” Legally, she could not. Because she is facing a federal indictment, anything she said to the House Ethics Committee could potentially be used by the DOJ in the criminal case. With the hearing continuing alongside an active case, this created serious legal risk. She was placed in a position where she had to weigh participation in the process against protecting her constitutional rights.
2. Procedural Concerns
There have been concerns raised about the level of support and preparation time available to her legal team. Reports indicate her attorney was working through a very large volume of evidence within a limited timeframe. In a fair process, defense preparation typically requires sufficient time to review materials thoroughly. When proceedings move quickly, it raises questions about whether all sides are fully able to prepare.
3. “Clear and Convincing” vs. “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”
The news keeps referencing “25 violations.” It is important to understand that the House Ethics Committee operates under different standards than criminal court. These proceedings do not require the same burden of proof as a criminal trial. In a criminal court, the standard is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.” She is still presumed innocent in the criminal case, even if public perception is being shaped by the ethics findings.
4. Why Resigning was the Outcome
She resigned during ongoing proceedings and has publicly described the situation as a “witch hunt.” From a legal perspective, this outcome is widely interpreted as connected to the challenges of navigating simultaneous congressional ethics proceedings and a federal criminal case. In situations like this, testifying in one forum can carry self-incrimination risks in another, which often leads individuals to prioritize their criminal defense, where constitutional protections are more fully applied.
The Bottom Line:
When the public treats allegations as final guilt before a trial concludes, the principle of due process is weakened. If she is guilty, that determination should come from a jury in 2027. Until then, it is important to allow the legal process to proceed without rushing to judgment.
Let’s slow down the public narrative and allow the law to take its course.
Rev. M. Theolene Johnson (theorisingeko) is a member of Florida Rising and a U.S. Army Combat Veteran, Global Advocate, and the Founder of the U.S. Global Advocacy & Development Foundation (USGADF). She is a certified human rights consultant and co-owner of J&A Blinds and Windows Enterprises, LLC, who facilitates reason-based community discussions. Connect with her on LinkedIn, IG or view her upcoming events on Eventbrite.
Hy-Lo News encourages community members, thought leaders, social commentators, experts, and really ANYONE to submit commentary that expresses their opinion and shares their point of view. The views they express in their Op-Eds are their own, but we believer in the right to provide people a platform to share them. However, we will never condone or publish hate speech, violence, bullying and anything our editorial team deems problematic.
0 comments on “OP-ED: Why The Public Is Wrong About Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick’s Resignation”