There's an important difference between the two.
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.
"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.
In the eyes of the law, he is innocent.
Judges admonish juries that people are "innocent until proven guilty" becaues most jurors aren't sophisticated enough to make the distinction.
This is a slogan, not a legal statement.
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.
"innocent" = "not guilty". Guilt is a binary state.
EDIT: Though, as this was a civil case, neither "guilty" nor "not guilty" were possible results.
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.
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.
It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal case.
Yeah, it is. That's exactly what "not guilty" means.
> They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt.
Right. Because people are presumed innocent. The failure to overcome the burden of proof to rebut a presumption means that the presumption is true. That's what a legal presumption means.
> It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal case.
Agreed. In fact, I said that upthread.
"Not guilty" is not a claim to absolute knowledge, where as "innocent" is. And that's an important distinction.
No, it isn't. Stop attempting to slaughter language and logic. All "not guilty" means is the state of guilt could not be proven. That does NOT imply innocence.
It is completely possible for a defendant to be guilty of a crime but be found not guilty -- that is, neither innocent nor guilty -- by virtue of lack of evidence, or process error, or whatever.
Here is a professor proving you wrong [1]:
>This means that the jurors found [the defendant] not guilty; it does not mean that they found her innocent. It does not even mean that any or all of them believe she had nothing to do with the demise of her daughter. All it means is that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony committed the offenses of which she was accused (other than giving false information to the police, the minor charge she was convicted of). In other words, the prosecution failed to meet the high standard to which society holds the state in criminal cases.
And here is a criminal lawyer proving you wrong [2]:
>Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty." ... A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant (I would use my client's name) is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty."
Now will you drop the unjustified arrogance?
[1] - http://articles.philly.com/2011-07-07/news/29747182_1_reason...
[2] - http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/Criminal-Defense-Overv...