4 ms·

> I think its important to understand that you're never found innocent; only not guilty. This is not true. Many wrongfully convicted people are found to be "fa

> I think its important to understand that you're never found innocent; only not guilty. This is not true. Many wrongfully convicted people are found to be "factually innocent" when their convictions are overturned. This is because after you are convicted the burden of proof to overturn the conviction switches, you are now presumed guilty, since you've been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and must prove your innocence. Some Supreme Court Justices even hold that being innocent isn't enough to get out of even the death penalty.

phyzix5761 2y ago
In American criminal law, the term "innocent" is not a verdict that a jury can return. Instead, the only possible verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty". No one can declare you innocent because new evidence may come up later finding you guilty.
- gambiting 2y ago
  Because like someone else said - innocent is the default state. Being found not guilty automatically means you're innocent. Any other read of this is invalid.
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > In American criminal law, the term "innocent" is not a verdict that a jury can return. Instead, the only possible verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty". No one can declare you innocent because new evidence may come up later finding you guilty. As the person to whom you responded said, there is such a thing as a determination of factual innocence. See, for example, the relevant section of Utah's legal code: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter9/78B-9-P4.html https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter9/78B-9-P4.html . I can't see at a glance whether a jury or only a judge can grant such a petition, but, even if a jury can't return such a verdict, that's different from saying "no one can declare you innocent."
- TylerE 2y ago
  No it can’t, that would violate Double Jeopardy.
  - ang_cire 2y ago
    No, that is about a court re-trying someone, which they cannot do. The evidence itself may well prove their guilt. The point being that a lack of evidence of guilt is not evidence of a lack of guilt. But we require evidence of guilt for convictions, not a lack of evidence of innocence (in criminal cases, and if it's not an affirmative defense).
    - TylerE 2y ago
      If they have been found not guilty (given) when exactly is this newly found evidence going to convict? That’s the point of double jeopardy.
      - ang_cire 2y ago
        It didn't say "convict", it said "prove". Evidence can prove someone guilty even if a court is unable to do anything about it.
- samatman 2y ago
  Anyone not guilty is presumed innocent. That which is presumed does not need to be declared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

phyzix5761 2y ago

In American criminal law, the term "innocent" is not a verdict that a jury can return. Instead, the only possible verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty". No one can declare you innocent because new evidence may come up later finding you guilty.

gambiting 2y ago
Because like someone else said - innocent is the default state. Being found not guilty automatically means you're innocent. Any other read of this is invalid.
JadeNB 2y ago
> In American criminal law, the term "innocent" is not a verdict that a jury can return. Instead, the only possible verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty". No one can declare you innocent because new evidence may come up later finding you guilty. As the person to whom you responded said, there is such a thing as a determination of factual innocence. See, for example, the relevant section of Utah's legal code: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter9/78B-9-P4.html https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter9/78B-9-P4.html . I can't see at a glance whether a jury or only a judge can grant such a petition, but, even if a jury can't return such a verdict, that's different from saying "no one can declare you innocent."
TylerE 2y ago
No it can’t, that would violate Double Jeopardy.
- ang_cire 2y ago
  No, that is about a court re-trying someone, which they cannot do. The evidence itself may well prove their guilt. The point being that a lack of evidence of guilt is not evidence of a lack of guilt. But we require evidence of guilt for convictions, not a lack of evidence of innocence (in criminal cases, and if it's not an affirmative defense).
  - TylerE 2y ago
    If they have been found not guilty (given) when exactly is this newly found evidence going to convict? That’s the point of double jeopardy.
    - ang_cire 2y ago
      It didn't say "convict", it said "prove". Evidence can prove someone guilty even if a court is unable to do anything about it.
samatman 2y ago
Anyone not guilty is presumed innocent. That which is presumed does not need to be declared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence