There's something here that does not make sense to me. The jury
deadlocked on the top charge, which was second degree manslaughter,
which you would think means that one or more jurors thought he was
guilty on this charge. But then the judge dismissed this charge and the
jury subsequently found him not guilty of the lesser charge, which was >criminally negligent homicide. ...
There's something here that does not make sense to me. The jury
deadlocked on the top charge, which was second degree manslaughter,
which you would think means that one or more jurors thought he was
guilty on this charge. But then the judge dismissed this charge and the jury subsequently found him not guilty of the lesser charge, which was criminally negligent homicide. That means the one or more jurors who thought he was guilty on the top charge thought he was not guilty of the lesser charge. I guess I don't understand that since the two charges
were for the same act.
On 12/9/2024 1:46 PM, Rick wrote:
There's something here that does not make sense to me. The jury
deadlocked on the top charge, which was second degree manslaughter,
which you would think means that one or more jurors thought he was
guilty on this charge. But then the judge dismissed this charge and
the jury subsequently found him not guilty of the lesser charge, which
was criminally negligent homicide. That means the one or more jurors
who thought he was guilty on the top charge thought he was not guilty
of the lesser charge. I guess I don't understand that since the two
charges were for the same act.
News update. He was found innocent of the second charge Monday morning
According to Rick <[email protected]>:
There's something here that does not make sense to me. The jury
deadlocked on the top charge, which was second degree manslaughter,
which you would think means that one or more jurors thought he was
guilty on this charge. But then the judge dismissed this charge and the
jury subsequently found him not guilty of the lesser charge, which was
criminally negligent homicide. ...
They're slightly different. Second degree manslaughter is "ehen he recklessly causes the death of another person" while criminally negligent homicide is "when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person."
The latter is defined as:
"A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists"
Being reckless and being negligent are similar but they're not the same,
and the jury had to decide both. Apparently the answer was maybe for reckless and no for negligent.
Rick wrote:
There's something here that does not make sense to me. The jury
deadlocked on the top charge, which was second degree manslaughter,
which you would think means that one or more jurors thought he was
guilty on this charge. But then the judge dismissed this charge and
the jury subsequently found him not guilty of the lesser charge,
which was criminally negligent homicide. That means the one or more
jurors who thought he was guilty on the top charge thought he was not
guilty of the lesser charge. I guess I don't understand that since
the two charges were for the same act.
News update. He was found innocent of the second charge Monday
morning
Roy <[email protected]> wrote:
Rick wrote:
There's something here that does not make sense to me. The jury
deadlocked on the top charge, which was second degree manslaughter,
which you would think means that one or more jurors thought he was
guilty on this charge. But then the judge dismissed this charge and
the jury subsequently found him not guilty of the lesser charge,
which was criminally negligent homicide. That means the one or more
jurors who thought he was guilty on the top charge thought he was not
guilty of the lesser charge. I guess I don't understand that since
the two charges were for the same act.
News update. He was found innocent of the second charge Monday
morning
Actually no. He was found not guilty, which is not quite the same thing.
AFAIK those are different terms for the same thing. In some states, a
jury that is not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" returns a verdict
of "Not Guilty", while in others such a jury will return a verdict of "Innocent".
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:36:15 -0800 (PST), Barry Gold wrote:
AFAIK those are different terms for the same thing. In some states, aI'm skeptical. Do you know of a specific jurisdiction within the US
jury that is not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" returns a verdict
of "Not Guilty", while in others such a jury will return a verdict of
"Innocent".
where "innocent" is a possible verdict, instead of "not guilty"?
I also think the latter should apply if a guilty verdict is later
overturned. We should not be punishing innocent people and if it happens
by accident the government should compensate the accused.
On 12/10/2024 12:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
According to Rick <[email protected]>:
There's something here that does not make sense to me. The jury
deadlocked on the top charge, which was second degree manslaughter,
which you would think means that one or more jurors thought he was
guilty on this charge. But then the judge dismissed this charge and the >>> jury subsequently found him not guilty of the lesser charge, which was
criminally negligent homicide. ...
They're slightly different. Second degree manslaughter is "ehen he
recklessly
causes the death of another person" while criminally negligent
homicide is
"when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person."
The latter is defined as:
"A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a
circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to
perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will
occur or
that such circumstance exists"
Being reckless and being negligent are similar but they're not the same,
and the jury had to decide both. Apparently the answer was maybe for
reckless and no for negligent.
I know, but what it means is that at least one juror voted guilty on
reckless but not guilty on the lesser charge of negligent. I just find
it strange that for the same set of events, a juror can vote guilty on
the more serious charge but then not guilty on the lesser charge.
To me it would be equivalent to a juror voting guilty on a first degree murder charge but then switching their vote to not guilty when the
charge is reduced to second degree murder.
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 18:44:49 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:
I also think the latter should apply if a guilty verdict is later
overturned. We should not be punishing innocent people and if it happens
by accident the government should compensate the accused.
Now that - definitely - is not an idea you got from Britain. We hate exonerated criminals and charge them board and lodging for the privilege
of being in jail.
It was a good thing we hanged people, as rope is reusable. Otherwise we
would doubtless have billed the family of Timothy Evans for the use
thereof, as he was cleared post mortem.
On 12/16/2024 6:00 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 18:44:49 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:And I thought our (USA) criminal justice system was f--ked up!
I also think the latter should apply if a guilty verdict is later
overturned. We should not be punishing innocent people and if it
happens by accident the government should compensate the accused.
Now that - definitely - is not an idea you got from Britain. We hate
exonerated criminals and charge them board and lodging for the
privilege of being in jail.
It was a good thing we hanged people, as rope is reusable. Otherwise we
would doubtless have billed the family of Timothy Evans for the use
thereof, as he was cleared post mortem.
On 12/15/2024 2:49 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:36:15 -0800 (PST), Barry Gold wrote:
AFAIK those are different terms for the same thing. In some states, aI'm skeptical. Do you know of a specific jurisdiction within the US
jury that is not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" returns a verdict >>> of "Not Guilty", while in others such a jury will return a verdict of
"Innocent".
where "innocent" is a possible verdict, instead of "not guilty"?
I agree. My searches turn up the same result. I think the idea of a
verdict of "innocent" may have come from a TV show. TV writers are not required to be true to reality.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
In Scotland a jury can return one of three verdicts:
Guilty
Not Proven
Not Guilty
Not guilty means that the jury doesn't think the defendant committed the crime. Either they are convinced of his innocence, or at least they
think that the prosecution's evidence is too weak for even a civil trial (preponderance of evidence).
For legal purposes, the two verdicts are equivalent. But a "Not Proven" verdict would tell the public that the jury thinks the defendant is
guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have occasionally toyed with the idea of bringing a variant of that to
the US system to discourage prosecutors from bringing questionable cases.
The two would not be equivalent: if the jury finds the defendant Not
Guilty, the defendant would be entitled to have his legal bills paid by
the government (preferably directly from the DA's office budget), plus
be compensated for time spent in jail awaiting trial.
I also think the latter should apply if a guilty verdict is later
overturned. We should not be punishing innocent people and if it happens
by accident the government should compensate the accused.
OTOH, that might encourage the prosecution to withhold evidence and or present questionable evidence like a witness who changed his/her story several times during interrogation.
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:36:15 -0800 (PST), Barry Gold wrote:
AFAIK those are different terms for the same thing. In some states, a
jury that is not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" returns a verdict
of "Not Guilty", while in others such a jury will return a verdict of
"Innocent".
I'm skeptical. Do you know of a specific jurisdiction within the US
where "innocent" is a possible verdict, instead of "not guilty"?
A Google search for "states where a jury can return a verdict of
innocent" (without quotes) followed Google's usual rule, "if I can't
give you what you asked for I'll give you something irrelevant that
uses one or more of the same words." But I didn't see a single result mentioning a state where "innocent" is a possible verdict, versus
many that said the choice is "guilty" or "not guilty".
The Google search "innocent vs. not guilty" (without quotes) was more productive, turning up reference after reference saying that the only
two verdicts are guilty and not guilty.
My summary of those results: "Not guilty" is a legal finding that the defendant's guilt ,if any, has not been proved beyond a reasonable
doubt. "Innocent" is a moral judgment about the defendant's _actual_
state, which of course can hardly ever be known with absolute
certainty; it's not a legal term.
Here are three representative quotes:
--------
(1) From <https://www.ramosdelcueto.com/blog/2021/06/the-difference- between-guilty-not-guilty-and-innocent/> (criminal lawyer's blog):
"A jury never actually says that you are innocent. They merely decide
if you're guilty or not guilty. ... A 'not guilty' verdict in court
simply means that the jury could not convict based on the evidence
before them because the evidence the prosecution presented did not
convince them beyond a reasonable doubt of your guilt."
--------
(2) <https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/not-guilty- and-innocent-problem-children-reasonable-doubt> says, early in the
abstract, "While in lay usage the term 'not guilty' is often
synonymous with 'innocent,' in American criminal jurisprudence they
are not the same. 'Not guilty' is a legal finding by the jury that
the prosecution has not met its burden of proof."
(The abstract goes on to deplore the poor quality of jury
instructions that may lead to a jury returning a verdict of "guilty"
even though the prosecution has not actually proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I wish the actual article were available for
download.)
--------
(3) The first three paragraphs of <https://johndrogerslaw.com/the- difference-between-not-guilty-and-innocent/>:
"In the criminal justice system, the terms 'not guilty' and
'innocent' are often used interchangeably, but they do not have the
same meaning. The difference between the two is crucial to
understanding the workings of the criminal justice system, and it is important to know the distinction between the two.
"Not guilty refers to the verdict reached by a jury or a judge in a
criminal trial. It means that the prosecution has failed to prove
their case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This is
the standard of proof required in a criminal trial and is a very high standard to meet. A not-guilty verdict does not mean that the
defendant is innocent, but rather that the prosecution has not met
its burden of proving guilt.
"Innocent, on the other hand, refers to the actual state of the
defendant. It means that the defendant did not commit the crime they
are being accused of. The problem is that the criminal justice system
is fallible and it is possible for innocent people to be convicted.
This is because the prosecution's burden of proof is only to prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not to prove innocence."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 22:01:17 |
| Calls: | 12,105 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,115 |