... I always thought the saying "innocent until proven guilty" misleading, since there's no "innocent" verdict... you are either found guilty or found not guilty, but never declared innocent.. and while the burden of proof is on the accuser, the accused still has to disprove the accuser's evidence, ergo having to prove his/her innocence. You never hear prosecutors say they didn't pursue a case because the accused was "innocent", it is always "not enough evidence to charge"...

... anyway, this is what? the 3rd allegation of sexual misconduct? He's half way to PacMan Jones' status, as (IIRC) he had 6 different criminal allegations against him... of course, he's innocent as well

you still have to defend yourself....thats why it is called the defense

the prosecutor must present evidence that you have done the crime and the evidence must prove to the judge/jury that the defense is in fact guilty of the crime they are being accused of

because there would be no case without prosecution, the judge/jury must find the defendant not guilty of the charges in order to validate innocence

We were doing ok until that
Courts never find you "innocent" or "validate your innoncence". You are either found guilty or found not guilty based on evidence presented; whether you are innocent or not, that's another story.
Even when there's no prosecution, they will never say "the accused is innocent", only a "not enough evidence to charge".

its just language.....not guilty means the prosecutor was wrong or didnt present enough evidence to prove you were guilty

the not guilty ruling is just language.....all it means is that we know you are innocent(thereby validating innocence)

you can say you are innocent.....and you are assumed innocent....but you have not been proven innocent......the not guilty ruling just says that there is no reason to believe you arent innocent

the not guilty ruling is just language.....all it means is that we know you are innocent(thereby validating innocence)

Not guilty does not mean we know you are innocent. Not guilty means the prosecution has not proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

There have been trials where jury members have stated after the case that they believe a defendant committed the crime they were accused of, but the prosecution did not do a good enough job of overcoming the definition of reasonable doubt. Therefore they had to find not guilty (Tobias is right...they do not say you are innocent).

There have also been cases where a defendant was found guilty, but the verdict was overturned on appeal because of mishandling or misrepresentation of evidence during the case. This can happen on a judge’s ruling and have nothing to do with a jury hearing the facts of a case. In neither one of these instances is the defendant innocent. But because of legal definitions they cannot be found guilty.

This also goes into why we have civil and criminal courts in our system. Civil courts do not have the same stringent requirements as criminal courts do. This is why a certain white bronco driving ex-NFL player was found not guilty in a legal trial, but in a civil trial was forced to pay millions in compensatory and punitive damages to the suvivors of two murder victims.

Not guilty does not mean we know you are innocent. Not guilty means the prosecution has not proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

There have been trials where jury members have stated after the case that they believe a defendant committed the crime they were accused of, but the prosecution did not do a good enough job of overcoming the definition of reasonable doubt. Therefore they had to find not guilty (Tobias is right...they do not say you are innocent).

There have also been cases where a defendant was found guilty, but the verdict was overturned on appeal because of mishandling or misrepresentation of evidence during the case. This can happen on a judge’s ruling and have nothing to do with a jury hearing the facts of a case. In neither one of these instances is the defendant innocent. But because of legal definitions they cannot be found guilty.

This also goes into why we have civil and criminal courts in our system. Civil courts do not have the same stringent requirements as criminal courts do. This is why a certain white bronco driving ex-NFL player was found not guilty in a legal trial, but in a civil trial was forced to pay millions in compensatory and punitive damages to the suvivors of two murder victims.

I was on such a jury. This guy beat the holy hell out of this other guy, but we did not award damages because they couldn't PROVE it...not beyond a reasonable doubt. Out system protect the innocent, and yes, it does allow guilty people to skate sometimes, but should anyone here ever be falsely accused (see falconhater) they'll be damned happy they're in an American court and not a Turkish one.

... don't believe the hype.

... and speaking of Turkish courts, personally, I've never been to one , and while it may be true that if you are accused of something you'd be damned happy you'd be tried in a US court, when someone does you wrong, and you are accusing someone who did something to you but somehow he gets off the hook on a technicality, then the Turkish court don't sound so bad

I was on such a jury. This guy beat the holy hell out of this other guy, but we did not award damages because they couldn't PROVE it...not beyond a reasonable doubt. Out system protect the innocent, and yes, it does allow guilty people to skate sometimes, but should anyone here ever be falsely accused (see falconhater) they'll be damned happy they're in an American court and not a Turkish one.