How has Justinian’s code influenced the US bill of rights? I’ve seen mention about rights during trials and innocence until proven guilty, but after hours of searching, I can’t find anything connecting the two that isn’t a shallow connection.
This needs some unpacking first to clear up a few things;
(1) Corpus iuris civilis was a codex of primarily roman juristic writings organized thematically, and was important as a document of codification that was preserved, and not legal improvements and innovations as a primary text per se. This might need some more unpacking to properly situate it, but it should suffice for now.
(2) Little doubt is there that some ideas, or rather derivatives* of Roman legal and republican state principles ( founding legislators were indeed keen on Roman republic, its state apparatus and laws, as widely attested in their private correspondence ). While the geneaology might be sometimes by modern standards sketchy and inaccurate - roman legal scholarship is monumentaly different than in late eighteenth and early nineteenth century - not only in terms of historiographical and comparative changes, but the amount of material available ( For example, Gaius´ Institutes were "rediscoved" in 1810s, if I am not mistaken ) as well.
*Even if I enumerate some of these derivatives, their respective traditions are nuanced, multifaceted, and comparably different than their respective holding in Roman law as such. Much more detailed accounts are needed to suffificently cover these, so I will merely show some potential examples, and leave some literature down below to explore, and keep in mind that an existance of a concept in Roman law and existance of a similar derivative later on does not mean a linear transmission or continuity.
The Governor should not permit the same person to be again accused of crime of which he has been acquitted. This the Divine Pius stated in a Rescript addressed to Salvius Valens. But let us see, while under this Rescript a person cannot be accused by the same individual, whether he can not be by another. Where a case has been decided so far as certain persons are concerned, this does not prejudice others, if he who now appears as an accuser prosecutes on account of some injury of his own, and proves that he did not know that the accusation had been brought by another, I think there is good reason that he should be permitted to make the accusation. ( Corpus iuris civilis, 47.2.7.2 )
Presumption of innocence is a bit more tricky to pin down, since it was not established ( not in constitution ) explicitly up to the 1894-5 in Coffin v. United States, although it has its history in eighteenth century, notably in McNally and Beccaria - although the usage is somewhat more specific and of procedural nature at this point, and not as a basic and pervasive maxim. As in terms to Roman origin, it is again of procedural nature of the greater standing of the defendant against the accuser who bears the burden of substantiation.
Civil tradition & Ninth amendment and classical Roman negative analogical reasoning, and was taken as such by Supreme court.^(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was not exhaustive, so the promised set of literature;
Thomas Lee. Civil Law’s Influence on American Constitutionalism.
F. Q-Morenas. The Presumption of Innocence in the French and Anglo-American Legal Traditions. The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 58, No. 1.
I hope these will be helpful, and I will do my best to answer any follow up questions or develop further on these points, if time will allow.