No soup for you!!!

[expat]

It's prpbaly all moot now anyway. OJ stated publically that he will will not pursue this legally..........Oh, wait, what does this mean really?  :o

I saw him buying a pair of gloves yesterday

Matt

[dcunning30]

However, he was found Not Guilty & is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. If I understand it correctly US law is the same as in England where the defendant is presumed innocent unless guilt can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a choice of two verdicts (Guilty or Not Guilty) & Innocent is not one of them. I rest my case.

You can rest it all you want.  Innocent and Not Guilty are two wholly different concepts in US law.  Not guilty strictly means there was insufficent evidence to convict.  And because of double jeorpardy, he can't be tried again in state court.

[dcunning30]

[quote][quote] It's prpbaly all moot now anyway. OJ stated publically that he will will not pursue this legally..........Oh, wait, what does this mean really?

[Hagar]

However, he was found Not Guilty & is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. If I understand it correctly US law is the same as in England where the defendant is presumed innocent unless guilt can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a choice of two verdicts (Guilty or Not Guilty) & Innocent is not one of them. I rest my case.

You can rest it all you want.

[dcunning30]

However, he was found Not Guilty & is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. If I understand it correctly US law is the same as in England where the defendant is presumed innocent unless guilt can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a choice of two verdicts (Guilty or Not Guilty) & Innocent is not one of them. I rest my case.

You can rest it all you want.

[Hagar]

However, he was found Not Guilty & is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. If I understand it correctly US law is the same as in England where the defendant is presumed innocent unless guilt can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. There is a choice of two verdicts (Guilty or Not Guilty) & Innocent is not one of them. I rest my case.

You can rest it all you want.

[dcunning30]

Not being a legal expert it seems logical to me that someone found Not Guilty must be innocent of the charges against him/her.

[Hagar]

Not being a legal expert it seems logical to me that someone found Not Guilty must be innocent of the charges against him/her.

[dcunning30]

They can be.  Either the judge or the DA can declare someone innocent.  Such a situation might take place in the case of exculpatory evidense arising, such as cases that were overturned as a result of DNA evidense.  Also, recall the Duke Rape Case.  The North Carolina DA's office that took over the case from Mike Nifong.  Not only did that DA declare the defendants innocent, but now charges are being brought up against Nifong for some specifics that amount to malicious prosecution.  I expect Nifong will loose his bar license.  And the defendents are looking to go after Nifong in civil court.

[dcunning30]

Also, the standard for a not guilty verdict is reasonable doubt.  A defense lawyer doesn't have to prove a defendent's innocence, all the lawyer is required to do is to shoot holes into the prosecution's case.

So, what we have here is the prosecution needing to prove a defendent committed a crime, and the defense attorney has to merely shoot holes in the prosecution's case.  So the burdon is clearly on the prosecution, which it should be.  But notice, nowhere in this scenario is the defense required to prove innocense.

So we have, not guilty, meaning there was insufficent evidence to convict.

[Hagar]

[quote]Also, the standard for a not guilty verdict is reasonable doubt.

[dcunning30]

I think the distinction arose from when our constitution was created, about different systems through the world that put the burdon on the defense to prove a defendent didn't commit the crime.  That phrase means the burdon is on the prosecution to prove someone did commit a crime.

[Hagar]

[quote]I think the distinction arose from when our constitution was created, about different systems through the world that put the burdon on the defense to prove a defendent didn't commit the crime.

[dcunning30]

[quote][quote]I think the distinction arose from when our constitution was created, about different systems through the world that put the burdon on the defense to prove a defendent didn't commit the crime.

[Hagar]

[quote]So, my original admonition to talk to a law professor was probably the correct one.