Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Acquitted vs not guilty

2»

Comments

  • #32
    coylemj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,792 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    ted1 wrote: »
    No one is ever proven innocent.
    Victor wrote: »
    Guilty verdicts that are overturned?

    A jury verdict of guilty is almost never overturned on appeal based on the fact that the appeal court simply disagreed with the verdict. It's not the role of appeal court judges to decide the facts as an alternative jury in a second run of the trial.

    When a jury verdict is overturned, it's usually because of a legal defect (typically something said or not said) in the judge's charge to the jury or because one side's proposed evidence was admitted or not admitted. In which case you might have some difficulty declaring that you were 'proved innocent'.

    The nearest the appeal court gets to deciding based on the facts is where one of the grounds of appeal is that the judge should not have allowed the charge to go to the jury for lack of a solid prosecution case. In that case and if that ground of appeal is successful, the appeal court can declare the conviction as 'unsafe', effectively declaring that no jury could convict based on the evidence.

    Whether that means the accused was 'proved innocent' would probably depend on who you're asking.


  • #33
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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.


  • #34
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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.

    No one remembers how the match was won in the history books , just the result.


  • #35
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    No one remembers how the match was won in the history books , just the result.

    Your point being?


  • #36
    Billgirlylegs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Billgirlylegs


    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.

    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”


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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”

    Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. None of that means a defendant can't be proven innocent.


  • #38
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,919 ✭✭✭GM228


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Talk about stating the bleeding obvious. None of that means a defendant can't be proven innocent.

    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.


  • #39
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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.
    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.


  • #40
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,548 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.
    I don't think a judge will ever give a direction on that basis. The direction will always be on the basis of whether the prosecution has discharged the burden of proving guilt.

    That's not to say, obviously, that evidence which is given in the course of the trial can't tend to satisfy observers, the public, etc, that the accused is beyond all doubt wholly innocent of the crime with which he is charged. That can happen, though it has to be said that outside of Hollywood movies it's a fairly rare event.


  • #41
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,643 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    No one remembers how the match was won in the history books , just the result.

    Unless it's the 'Hand of God' moment by Maradona. The English never got over that.

    Over here, they tried to do similar with the 'Hand of Frog'...until it was revealed the FAI took a massive payout to stay quiet.


  • #43
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,548 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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
    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.


  • #44
    donegal_man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,061 ✭✭✭donegal_man


    Surely being found "not guilty" just means that the accused person has been acquitted by a jury of their peers. Therefore the two expressions are essentially interchangeable. I think the word "acquit" only really came into common usage here following the media furor over Johnny Cochran's famous line in the OJ Simpson trial regarding the blood stained glove. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

    As far as how much proof is required, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond "reasonable" not "all" doubt. For instance Mr. X is found standing over the body of his long time rival with a recently discharged pistol in his hand and tells the investigating officers, "I'm glad I killed Y, I hated him." Now his barrister could try to make the case that he merely said that in panic after finding the victim but how reasonable is such a claim?


  • #45
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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.

    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".


  • #46
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,548 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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".
    Essentially, the issue was whether the statutory requirement to take "the shortest route" meant the driver had to take the route involving the least distance, or could equally be satisfied by taking the route involving the least time. The defendant led evidence showing that on the day in question the route he took had the lower fare, which (given that it involved a greater distance) meant that it must have taken less time. The prosecution didn't, as far as I can see, dispute this. So there was no dispute but that the defendant took the quickest route; the issue was whether this would satisfy the requirement to take the shortest route.

    In dismissing the charge, the judge was in effect holding that, yes, the requirement to take the shortest route could be satisfied by taking the route which took the least amount of time.

    So the issue here was essentially one of interpretation; what does "shortest route" mean? The defendant won, in the sense that the court accepted that the interpretation he put forward was the correct one. But winning on a point of statutory interpretation is not normally what we would think of as someone "proving his innocence".

    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.


  • #47
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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.

    Therefore he proved he was innocent of the offence charged.


  • #48
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,548 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Therefore he proved he was innocent of the offence charged.
    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".


  • #49
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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".
    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.


  • #50
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,548 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.
    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.


  • #51
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,809 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,548 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.
    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.

    But, consider a hypothetica alternative. Suppose the taxi-driver proved his route was the quickest, and argued that this satisfied the "shortest" requirement but the court had said no, shortest means shortest in distance, and convicted him (but imposed no penalty). Would we still say that he had "proved his innocence"? Sure, he's been convicted, but he has proven he was not dishonest, had no intent to defraud, was in fact motivated to serve his passengers to their best advantage, had saved them money, etc, etc. In that sense we could say that he had proved his moral innocence, and indeed his moral virtue, even if he was committed a regulatory infringement.


  • #53
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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.

    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.


  • #54
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,548 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.
    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.


  • #55
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    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.

    The witness will have to be asked if they accepted that there was a shorter in time route available.The prosecution will not have to test all possible alternative routes and then testify that the one taken was longer in time than any of the others. The peculiar knowledge principle will apply. It will certainly have to be put to a witness who says that the route taken was not the shortest that there was a shorter route available, whether that is shorter in time or shorter in distance. A court won't rule on the meaning of a statute in a hypothetical sense.


  • #56
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,727 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    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 witness, especially if they are a professional witness, can help inform the court, especially on technical matters or nuanced meanings.


  • #57
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,548 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Victor wrote: »
    The witness, especially if they are a professional witness, can help inform the court, especially on technical matters or nuanced meanings.
    In principle, yes, but I don't see that that would be hugely relevant here.

    Taxi Regulation Act 2013 s.23(3) requires the taxi driver to take "the shortest route, where practicable, or, with the consent of the passenger, the most convenient route". I don't see that the evidence of a professional expert witness has much to contribute as regards the meaning of the word "shortest" in that provision.


  • #58
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,809 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Victor wrote: »
    The witness, especially if they are a professional witness, can help inform the court, especially on technical matters or nuanced meanings.

    Words in a statute are construed by the judge according to their ordinary meaning. In a contract it may be the case that a word or phrase is a "term of art" eg. to a baker a dozen means thirteen, and in that case expert evidence may be introducedto show the trade meaning of a word or phrase.


Advertisement