4 ms·

The jury didn't say he "did not commit insider trading"; they said the government didn't prove that he committed insider trading. They didn't say he's innocent

by rosser 13y ago

The jury didn't say he "did not commit insider trading"; they said the government didn't prove that he committed insider trading. They didn't say he's innocent of the charges, but that he's not guilty of them. There's an important difference between the two.

stevesearer 13y ago
I was on a jury for a trial involving an alleged dui offense and what you mention is exactly the reason we found the defendant to be not guilty.
- untog 13y ago
  How did that feel? I ask the question very genuinely. It sounds as if you suspected the accused was guilty, but that the evidence did not back it up. How did you feel about letting him go?
  - ElChacal 13y ago
    What is your point and how is that relevant?
gibwell 13y ago
Who are you to talk when the allegations made against you have never even been heard in court, let alone tried in front of a jury?
beambot 13y ago
Can a jury ever find a defendant "innocent"? I thought the only two options were "guilty" and "not guilty".
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Can a jury ever find a defendant "innocent"? I thought the only two options were "guilty" and "not guilty". "innocent" = "not guilty". Guilt is a binary state. EDIT: Though, as this was a civil case, neither "guilty" nor "not guilty" were possible results.
  - gamblor956 13y ago
    Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state. Guilty = beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged. Not guilty = the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged Innocent = beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., factual impossibility) that the defendant did not commit the crime alleged. It is exceedingly rare for a jury to make a finding of innocence since (a) few prosecutors will agree to a jury instruction allowing this finding, and (b) if there is the necessary evidence to prove innocence, the judge will throw out the related charges before the decision gets to the jury. If the judge throws out the charge, whether the judge will further make a finding of innocence depends on the defendant--usually the defendant must move the court for such a finding and few do. However, in some jurisdictions judges have the leeway to make that finding without a motion by the defendant.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state. Except in the case of things like the Scottish three-verdict system (which doesn't follow the conditions that you lay out), this is generally not true. Particularly, in the US, generally "guilty" and "not guilty" are the only possible verdicts in most criminal cases (there are certain cases where "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but mentally ill" are also available), and there is no verdict that requires proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
      - SeanLuke 13y ago
        The point stands though: "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent". Juries in criminal trials do not determine innocence. They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt. Just because the government couldn't prove its claim doesn't mean the claim was false. It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal case.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
- ksherlock 13y ago
  In California, there is a Petition for Factual Innocence/Declaration of Factual Innocence. The judge (not the jury) makes the determination.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    True; the main purpose of the Petition/Declaration of Factual Innocence seems to be to seal (and eventually expunge) arrest/prosecution records and legally allow a person to answer "No" to whether they have ever been arrested or charged with a crime, and it applies to arrests even where no charges were ever filed.
jtreminio 13y ago
Except that in America people are innocent until proven guilty. In the eyes of the law, he is innocent.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  No, in the eyes of the law, he is "not guilty." Innocence is a factual finding which has the same burden of proof as guilt because it is a definitive finding that the defendant did not commit the crime charged. Judges admonish juries that people are "innocent until proven guilty" becaues most jurors aren't sophisticated enough to make the distinction.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- SeanLuke 13y ago
  > Except that in America people are innocent until proven guilty. This is a slogan, not a legal statement.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    So when the SCOTUS in Coffin v. United States wrote "The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty," they were just writing a slogan?
    - SeanLuke 13y ago
      Of course. This whole debate, which is entirely moot since it's not a criminal trial, arises from the fact that "guilty" and "not guilty" (and "innocent" I guess) have both informal meanings and formal legal meanings, and those meanings are different. The OP used the formal meaning, in a formal context. People tossing about the informal meaning are not adding to the discussion.
baddox 13y ago
It's an invented difference that has no observable (as in, non-semantic) manifestations. As far as his legal treatment from here forward, he "did not commit insider trading" to the same extent that my grandmother (who has done no trading whatsoever and has never been accused of such) "did not commit insider trading."
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Most people don't discuss things in terms of their strict legal definition, but in terms of what actually happened. Your comment suggests that I could steal a car, but I am not any more of a car thief than your grandmother until I get caught and convicted. I may not be a Car Thief, but I'm a car thief, which is what really matters.
smalter 13y ago
this comment is really off point. there's no guilty/not guilty/innocence distinction here because this wasn't even a criminal case, it was a civil case. in addition, the statement "the government didn't prove insider trading" is tantamount to the statement "mark cuban did not commit insider trading" because the case boiled down to a disputed question of fact, and what actually happened is unknowable.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  Yes gak, "He wasn't proven innocent" is a rhetorical attack that can be made against virtually anyone who has been tried and not convicted in the US. Indeed doubly off-topic as this is a civil matter. But it still should be noted that, given prosecutors in the US have a high (up to 90%+) conviction rate, not being proven guilty is pretty good as far as exoneration goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

by rosser 13y ago

stevesearer 13y ago

I was on a jury for a trial involving an alleged dui offense and what you mention is exactly the reason we found the defendant to be not guilty.

untog 13y ago
How did that feel? I ask the question very genuinely. It sounds as if you suspected the accused was guilty, but that the evidence did not back it up. How did you feel about letting him go?
- ElChacal 13y ago
  What is your point and how is that relevant?

gibwell 13y ago

Who are you to talk when the allegations made against you have never even been heard in court, let alone tried in front of a jury?

beambot 13y ago

Can a jury ever find a defendant "innocent"? I thought the only two options were "guilty" and "not guilty".

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Can a jury ever find a defendant "innocent"? I thought the only two options were "guilty" and "not guilty". "innocent" = "not guilty". Guilt is a binary state. EDIT: Though, as this was a civil case, neither "guilty" nor "not guilty" were possible results.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state. Guilty = beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged. Not guilty = the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged Innocent = beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., factual impossibility) that the defendant did not commit the crime alleged. It is exceedingly rare for a jury to make a finding of innocence since (a) few prosecutors will agree to a jury instruction allowing this finding, and (b) if there is the necessary evidence to prove innocence, the judge will throw out the related charges before the decision gets to the jury. If the judge throws out the charge, whether the judge will further make a finding of innocence depends on the defendant--usually the defendant must move the court for such a finding and few do. However, in some jurisdictions judges have the leeway to make that finding without a motion by the defendant.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state. Except in the case of things like the Scottish three-verdict system (which doesn't follow the conditions that you lay out), this is generally not true. Particularly, in the US, generally "guilty" and "not guilty" are the only possible verdicts in most criminal cases (there are certain cases where "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but mentally ill" are also available), and there is no verdict that requires proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
    - SeanLuke 13y ago
      The point stands though: "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent". Juries in criminal trials do not determine innocence. They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt. Just because the government couldn't prove its claim doesn't mean the claim was false. It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal case.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
ksherlock 13y ago
In California, there is a Petition for Factual Innocence/Declaration of Factual Innocence. The judge (not the jury) makes the determination.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  True; the main purpose of the Petition/Declaration of Factual Innocence seems to be to seal (and eventually expunge) arrest/prosecution records and legally allow a person to answer "No" to whether they have ever been arrested or charged with a crime, and it applies to arrests even where no charges were ever filed.

jtreminio 13y ago

Except that in America people are innocent until proven guilty. In the eyes of the law, he is innocent.

gamblor956 13y ago
No, in the eyes of the law, he is "not guilty." Innocence is a factual finding which has the same burden of proof as guilt because it is a definitive finding that the defendant did not commit the crime charged. Judges admonish juries that people are "innocent until proven guilty" becaues most jurors aren't sophisticated enough to make the distinction.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
SeanLuke 13y ago
> Except that in America people are innocent until proven guilty. This is a slogan, not a legal statement.
- icebraining 13y ago
  So when the SCOTUS in Coffin v. United States wrote "The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty," they were just writing a slogan?
  - SeanLuke 13y ago
    Of course. This whole debate, which is entirely moot since it's not a criminal trial, arises from the fact that "guilty" and "not guilty" (and "innocent" I guess) have both informal meanings and formal legal meanings, and those meanings are different. The OP used the formal meaning, in a formal context. People tossing about the informal meaning are not adding to the discussion.

baddox 13y ago

It's an invented difference that has no observable (as in, non-semantic) manifestations. As far as his legal treatment from here forward, he "did not commit insider trading" to the same extent that my grandmother (who has done no trading whatsoever and has never been accused of such) "did not commit insider trading."

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Most people don't discuss things in terms of their strict legal definition, but in terms of what actually happened. Your comment suggests that I could steal a car, but I am not any more of a car thief than your grandmother until I get caught and convicted. I may not be a Car Thief, but I'm a car thief, which is what really matters.

smalter 13y ago

this comment is really off point. there's no guilty/not guilty/innocence distinction here because this wasn't even a criminal case, it was a civil case. in addition, the statement "the government didn't prove insider trading" is tantamount to the statement "mark cuban did not commit insider trading" because the case boiled down to a disputed question of fact, and what actually happened is unknowable.

joe_the_user 13y ago
Yes gak, "He wasn't proven innocent" is a rhetorical attack that can be made against virtually anyone who has been tried and not convicted in the US. Indeed doubly off-topic as this is a civil matter. But it still should be noted that, given prosecutors in the US have a high (up to 90%+) conviction rate, not being proven guilty is pretty good as far as exoneration goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate