.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Not Guilty, or Acquitted?

I keep hearing two different results for the Michael Jackson trial. Maybe the way I understand it is wrong?

The two versions that I hear is that he's:
  1. Been acquitted
  2. Been found not guilty
My understanding of an acquittal is that the charges have been cleared, in the sense that there was no case, almost like the charge was never made, whereas when you're found not guilty, it's saying that there was grounds for a case, but the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Well that's what I remember from 2 years of legal studies...correct me if I'm wrong

Edit: Then, I found this. Maybe it's the difference between two countries legal system?

Of course the other thing that some people should keep in mind is that he wasn't found to be innocent, simply that on the evidence presented he was found not guilty. Big difference.

Even one of the jurors has come out and said that he believes that Jackson did abuse kids but that the evidence in court didn't support a guilty verdict.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home