I am not a lawyer, and using the old joke, I never even played one on TV. I will say, though, that there was a time in my life when I thought I wanted to become an attorney, and I am still interested in legal matters to some extent.
Recently, there has been a trial in the United States that has been widely followed. Of course, many people will easily know that I am talking about the trial of Casey Anthony, over the murder of her daughter Caylee Anthony in 2008. This post is not really specifically about that trial, although the contents of this post were inspired by the results of the trial. But, as far as the guilt of innocence of Casey Anthony, I’ll leave that for others to talk about, because it is, to be honest, of little interest to me.

The US Supreme Court Justices
After Ms. Anthony was found to be “not guilty” though, there has been discussion on TV among legal experts. A lot of lawyers that I have seen on TV have exclaimed that “she was not found by the jury to be innocent of the crime, it was found that she was not guilty.” Of course, I can see the difference between the two, although in some ways the argument is like splitting hairs.
In one instance, if a person is found to be guilty of a crime, that means that the justice system has found that indeed, they did commit the crime.
On the other hand, if the jury finds the person to be “not guilty” of the crime, it means strictly that evidence has not been presented that is strong enough to consider the person to be guilty of the crime. The jury does not have the option of finding the person “innocent,” they must choose between guilty or not guilty.
So, these legal experts pontificate that since the jury found the defendant to be “not guilty” that does not necessarily mean that the person is innocent.
But is that correct?
I always thought that the statement was correct, but after thinking it over recently, I find that the statement is not correct at all. I would argue that if a jury finds a defendant to be not guilty, that person is indeed innocent.
How?
Why?
Well, under the United States system of jurisprudence, a person is “Innocent until proven guilty.” If a jury finds that a person is “not guilty” that would mean that the person is not guilty of the crime. Further, if you extrapolate, if you have been found to not be guilty, you are innocent, because you are innocent until proven guilty. You were never proven to be guilty, thus you are still innocent, and always will be.
Anybody care to argue that point? It seems simple to me.


















Recent Comments