ted1 wrote: » No one is ever proven innocent.
Victor wrote: » Guilty verdicts that are overturned?
4ensic15 wrote: » A person may well be proven innocent. DNA evidence, other forensic or alibi evidence may be so strong that it is a certainty that the person charged did not commit the crime. It is just that the verdict will not be innocent, it will just be not guilty.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » No one remembers how the match was won in the history books , just the result.
Billgirlylegs wrote: » The point of a court case is to address a charge that one or more person committed an unlawful act. The burden is on the prosecution to eliminate doubt that they did it, or refute their denial that they did it.. If they are successful, the accused, is deemed to be guilty and is subject to appropriate punishment. The only burden that exists in the justice system, is that the prosecution must prove the accused is guilty. If they don’t,the verdict is not guilty.( in the opinion of a jury of their peers) Found not guilty, therefore is not the same as innocent Acquit iused as in “Accquitted of the charge”’ is not strictly correct, in the context of a criminal case. I would agree with the post suggesting it is a media thing to avoid the possibility of omitting “not” from “ not guilty”
4ensic15 wrote: » Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. None of that means a defendant can't be proven innocent.
GM228 wrote: » It is not possible in law for a court to "prove" innocence. There is a distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty", it's important to note that this distinction is relevant because of the way the criminal justice system works. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that the accused committed the crime. The reality is that our courts are not really concerned with if a person committed a crime or not, rather the issue is whether or not the prosecutor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. Remember Blackstone's ratio - "all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer", the criminal justice system agrees that wrongful imprisonment/punishment of an innocent person is unacceptable, and so we have the presumption of innocence. As a result of the presumption the court doesn't place a burden on the accused to prove their innocence, rather there is a requirement for the prosecutor prove the accused guilty, the Golden Thread. If the prosecutor can't do that, then the defendant is "not guilty", and there's no need even to discuss whether the defendant is in fact innocent or not, nor is there a provision in law which allows for such. In law "not guilty" simply means the prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and nothing more - the accused is not culpable for the crime they are accused of.
4ensic15 wrote: » It is possible, in law, to prove anything. The issue in this thread is the meaning of the verdict. You are confusing the facts proven with the verdict. A judge could well direct a jury to bring in a not guilty verdict on the basis that the accused has in fact proven himself innocent.
4ensic15 wrote: » Her is an example of a Defendant proving his innocence rather than relying on a prosecution failing to prove its case.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/taxi-driver-cleared-of-taking-tourists-for-a-ride-after-proving-his-longer-route-to-temple-bar-was-cheaper-36789726.html
Peregrinus wrote: » He didn't prove he was innocent (in the moral sense). Although the route he chose was in fact cheaper, this was only established after he made the choice. It's still possible that he choose it knowing it to be longer in distance, and assuming (incorrectly, as it turned out) that it would result in a higher fare. Of course, it's not very likely that he made the choice on this basis, but he didn't prove that he didn't. He didn't have to prove it in order to secure an acquittal.
4ensic15 wrote: » He admitted that he deliberately chose the longer route in the sense of the distance travelled. He established that the route he chose was the shortest in the sense of the time taken to complete it. The dismissal was on the basis of the judge accepting his construction of the word "shortest".
Peregrinus wrote: » I think to say that a defendant proved his innocence would suggest something like proving that he didn't do the acts alleged against him. Here, the defendant did do the acts alleged against him, but the court agreed with him that those acts were not criminal.
4ensic15 wrote: » Therefore he proved he was innocent of the offence charged.
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes, but not of the conduct alleged. I'm not sure that this is the kind of resounding triumphant "proof of innocence" that we are discussing here. On this view, everyone who secures an acquittal by arguing that the particular statute under which is he charged does not criminalise to his acts has "proved his innocence" but in many cases (though not this one, I agree) the public view will be that he was acquitted on a technicality. For example, the late Pat O'Connor, who was election agent to Charlie Haughey, was acquitted of electoral offences on the basis that the acts alleged against him - apply for a second ballot paper, after having obtained, filled out and cast a previous ballot paper at a different polling station - did not constitute the offence of attempting to cast a second vote, because there was no allegation or proof that he had completed the first ballot paper in a way which constituted a valid vote. He was acquitted on the basis that merely applying for a second ballot paper having filled out and cast the first was not (then) an offence, but very few people would say that he had "proved his innocence".
4ensic15 wrote: » We are discussing the general proposition of whether a defendant can prove himself innocent. In the majority of cases there is an acquittal but there is no reason why, in principle, a defendant can't prove himself innocent. The taxi driver proved himself innocent of the charge alleged against him. It may not happen often, but it can happen.
Peregrinus wrote: » It can happen (as I said earlier) but I don't think this is an example. Proof refers to facts, established by evidence. But the taxi driver won on a point of law - namely, the correct interpretation of the statute, and that's established by argument, not evidence, and there is no "proof" involved. The taxi driver would have "proven his innocence" if, e.g., he led evidence that on the day in question he was in New York delivering a public lecture in physiology to 150 people who could all testify as to his presence there, and so couldn't possibly have been driving a taxi in Dublin, and so must have been charged in error. More generally, he would "prove his innocence" by leading evidence that shows irrefutably that he did not do the acts alleged in the charge. But arguing a point of statutory interpretation - even arguing it successfully - is not "proving" anything.
Claw Hammer wrote: » Facts have to be established to invoke the point of statutory interpretation. The prosecution had to lead evidence that the shortest journey was not undertaken. They had to prove what journey was in fact taken and then prove that it was not the shortest journey. Evidence of this had to be offered. The Defendant accepted the journey was undertaken but then had to prove that the journey he took was shorter timewise and thus more economical than the journey the prosecution says he should have taken. Only after he proved that did the point of statutory interpretation arise. It took positive evidence from the defendant to bring about the dismissal.
Peregrinus wrote: » Actually, strictly speaking, it didn't. If, without producing any evidence about which route was quickest, the defendant had argued that "shortest" could mean shortest in time, and if the court had accepted that, then the charge would have been dismissed, because the prosecution hadn't led any evidence to prove that its preferred journey was the shortest in time.
4ensic15 wrote: » The prosecution still had to prove that a journey was taken and offer evidence that the journey taken was not the shortest. It would have been up to the Defendant to contradict that. It wouldn't be enough to say that shortest meant the shortest in time as well as distance. The witness would have to be cross examined as to their interpretation of the word shortest and asked if the accepted that a shorter in time route was available. It wouldn't be enough to say that the word shortest meant the shortest in time.
Peregrinus wrote: » The witness's intepretation of the word "shortest" is irrelevant. The court doesn't take instruction in law from witnesses. It's the the court, not the witness, that determines what the words of the statute mean. The actual facts in this case were not in dispute - which route was shortest, which route the defendant took, and the length of the defendant's route. All of those facts were proven by the prosecution. The defence doesn't need any witness or any evidence to submit that "shortest" can mean "shortest in time" and, if the court accepts that submission, the defence can then look for a direction on the basis that the prosecution hasn't proven that the route the defendant took was not the shortest in time. Result: acquittal, with no evidence having been led by the defendant.
Peregrinus wrote: » The witness's intepretation of the word "shortest" is irrelevant. The court doesn't take instruction in law from witnesses. It's the the court, not the witness, that determines what the words of the statute mean.
Victor wrote: » The witness, especially if they are a professional witness, can help inform the court, especially on technical matters or nuanced meanings.
