Isn't being "innocent" of a crime legally different from being "not guilty" of those charges?
Seems like Trump is getting a bit of very horrible legal advice from some notably powerful legal minds.
Moderator: Biker
Isn't being "innocent" of a crime legally different from being "not guilty" of those charges?
I read once that at least one country, Sweden or one of the northern countries, had the options of guilty, not guilty, or innocent, acknowledging the possibility of clear innocence on the part of the accused.QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 12:48 pmIsn't being "innocent" of a crime legally different from being "not guilty" of those charges?
Seems like Trump is getting a bit of very horrible legal advice from some notably powerful legal minds.
We don’t find people innocent, though.QillerDaemon wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 12:48 pmIsn't being "innocent" of a crime legally different from being "not guilty" of those charges?
Seems like Trump is getting a bit of very horrible legal advice from some notably powerful legal minds.
I'd say that not being taken to court isn't a determination of innocence, its only a refrain from charging.Cassandros wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 1:22 pm There is no such thing in the US court system as "innocent".
You are either guilty or not guilty.
To be deemed "innocent" means you have an alibi or something that prevents you from going to court in the first place.
Yea, I was also thinking about Casey Anthony's trial. In the court of the public, she was definitely guilty of 1st degree murder. But during the actual trial, the prosecution's evidence came out as really flimsy, and so the jury based on that evidence found her not guilty. But not innocent. Some of the jurors have stated they felt the state's case was horrible for a 1st degreee murder charge, but would have easily found her guilty on a 2nd degree murder charge. *That* evidence was there.Wut wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 1:10 pm
OJ is a great example. He was found not guilty in the criminal trial; it wasn't a determination that he was innocent. He was then found civilly liable because the evidence of responsibility was determined to exceed the threshold in the civil case where it was not in the criminal case. The difference is beyond a reasonable doubt standard compared to a more likely than not standard for a civil trial. Had the criminal case determination been actual innocence, the civil case could not have gone on.