Quote:
Originally Posted by collie1228
Not guilty is different than an acquittal? I'm unfamiliar with Florida law, but the legal dictionary I referenced said, "An acquittal is a verdict of not guilty from the jury or judge that decided the case." I agree that a hung jury is quite different from an acquittal, but can you explain your comment dillywho?
|
Collie, this is kinda long and for that I apologize. (I tried to post a link but couldn't figure out how to do it.) You are right that by definition, acquittal and not guilty are the same. This article says more what I was trying to say about the difference though. This was written by a Ft. Worth lawyer.
Not Guilty vs. Innocent
When I am interviewing potential clients, I hear on a regular basis that "I'm innocent". It goes in one ear and out the other with me. I don't care if your innocent. I care if you are "Not Guilty". So what is the difference? If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. Congratulations you have it! But you still face all the consequences of being charged with a criminal offense. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, there was no crime, they arrested the wrong person, they could not prove their case, any one or combination of the above can produce the not guilty verdict.
In a criminal case you are either "guilty" or "not guilty". When the jury returns with it's verdict it will be one or the other. This is not much ado about nothing. My goal in a criminal trial is to get the jury to say at the end "not guilty" not "we find you innocent". The reason of course is that the law places the burden of proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the government. You don't have to prove your innocence. (like you could even do that). The person accused has no burden of proof at all. In fact the trial starts with one fact absolutely established, that the defendant is presumed "not guilty". The government must prove guilt to the highest standard the law allows and if they don't the jury has no choice but to find the defendant "not guilty".
A criminal trial is not about what you as the defendant can prove. It is about what the government can prove. It has been my experience that I have won many more trials when I put on no witnesses or evidence. Instead I shot holes in the government's case and pointed out how weak or how little evidence they produced. Often by putting on witnesses and evidence for the defense, the jury gets confused that the trial is not a battle of who has the most or best evidence. They think, "well we believed that the state's evidence was better or they had more evidence than the defense". We will lose that battle every time. When no evidence is produced by the accused, the law about who bears the burden of proof is underlined for the jury. The court will tell the jury that the law does not impose any burden on the defendant to produce any testimony or evidence. The judge instructs the jury that they must accept that as the law before they begin their deliberations.
So why is this distinction not well known? If you listen to the news media's coverage of a trial, you will hear them talk of innocence. They will say a jury found someone "innocent" in court today. No they did not! They found someone "not guilty". If you are concerned about innocence, then see a priest, rabbi, or clergyman. If you have been charged by the government with a crime and they seek to take away your liberty, you should be concerned about being found "Not Guilty" and see a criminal defense lawyer!