Hacker News Reader

Comment by papercrane | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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.

> 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 . 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."

No it can’t, that would violate Double Jeopardy.

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).

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.

It didn't say "convict", it said "prove". Evidence can prove someone guilty even if a court is unable to do anything about it.

Anyone not guilty is presumed innocent. That which is presumed does not need to be declared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Reply on news.ycombinator.com