I was reading a book about famous criminal cases of the past. One chapter was dedicated to a certain John Donald Merrett (aka Ronald Chesney) who, when he was a teenager, was tried for the murder of his mother and forging checks in her name.
He was convicted of the forgery, but the verdict regarding the accusation of having murdered his mother was “not proven”.
I must confess that I feel a bit confused about this verdict. Guilty, I get it. Innocent, I get it. There is the concept of “innocent unless proven guilty”.
So, if during a trial the prosecution cannot prove that someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, isn’t the alternative then automatically for the prisoner to be declared “innocent”?
Where does the “not proven” come from? What does it exactly imply?
This is the first time I have found this particular concept and I find it a bit confusing.
Thanks in advance for helping this poor lost Spaniard who doesn’t get the intricacies of the Scottish legal system!
It’s a historic thing, peculiar to Scottish law. Originally verdicts were “proven” or “not proven” but juries wanted to bring in “guilty” verdicts as they already did in England.
It seems that it is a bit controversial these days and is most often seen in rape cases where a jury essentially say, yes he did it, but the Crown hasn’t proved he did it. Lawyers insist that this is not at all what it means, but as far as I can tell, that’s how most people read it. The latest attempt to do away with it failed in February this year. http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/02/26/msps-reject-attempt-to-abolish-not-proven-verdict-from-scots-law/
IANAL, but “innocent” isn’t an option in any of the English-speaking systems whose TV shows I’ve watched
BBC has this article about many Brits being confused by the terminology as well, and another from The Scotsman. It ain’t just you.
It is exactly the same situation as that between “not guilty” and “not proven”. Formally different, the actual legal consequences the same, but people find the formal difference confusing.
Not guilty, but don’t do it again is the colloquial definition of ‘not proven’.
I think I am right in saying that Scottish judges (Sheriffs? Chieftains?) are instructed not to get into the definition of not proven when summing up for the jury, as it just creates confusion. I’ve sat on a jury in a Scottish criminal trial and that was the case - the judge spoke with great clarity on the process of reaching a verdict but didn’t make any comments on what not proven meant.
Anecdotally, it seemed to be the shithouse option for a few of the jurors I was with. It was an open and shut case [is that a kilo of heroin in your back pocket Sir? Why yes, it appears that it is], with the majority of us feeling that the evidence was overwhelming and it was impossible not to find the accused guilty. Seeing that the majority verdict would carry as guilty, a couple chipped in with not proven just to equivocate.
So on a more finely balanced case I could see how it might add a lot of additional complexity to deliberations.
And really there are three logical states. “Proven Guilty”, “Proven Innocent”, and “Not Proven Either Way”. Legally the latter two are identical, and the fact that there is usually only a single verdict to cover them both enforces that invariant, which is one of the reasons why people are put off by the addition of a third legal possibility.
I suppose that “not guilty” refers simply to a legal status - the person has not been convicted of the crime according to the law. “Innocent” seems to carry more of a moral quality, implying, perhaps, something like purity of motive, which may not be a matter for the law at all.
No, inocente happens to be what most or all Spanish-language legal systems use to indicate acquittal; there is no such possible verdict as no culpable, same as English systems do not use “innocent” in their own. Both JoseB and me are Spanish.
What about double jeopardy? Is the “not proven” verdict final? Or can the case be opened again if the prosecution finds more evidence?
What if the defendant is unhappy with the verdict? The “NP” verdict lets an accused person walk free but with a shadow over his name. If the defendant later acquires evidence that he thinks would exonerate him and lead to a “not guilty” verdict, can he get a new trial?
No. “Not guilty” is a verdict stating that the guilt of the defendant was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (Or because of a reasonable doubt.) It does not mean that the trier of the facts (judge or jury) found the defendant innocent. In a civil case, the burden is less, and the defendant can be found liable by the preponderance of the evidence. See the OJ cases. Or by “clear and convincing” evidence in equity cases.
Thanks a lot for the explanations! I feel edumacated! What would I do without the SDMB?
As an aside, this has made me think about the peculiarities of the judiciary during the Franco years… One of the aspects that was truly terrible of the trials in Spain at that time was that, during the trial, the basic concept being applied was not “innocent unless proven guilty”… It was the other way round!
You had to prove your innocence during the trial! Spanish defense lawyers during the Franco era had a much, much harder job.
For some reason, very few people acquitted around the world demand to be re-tried.
Anyway. Not Proven is an extremely useful verdict.
Consider Lennie, a grim saturnine procurator fiscal, who has devoted his life to undermining his family members’ confidence and mercilessly bullied many a defendant. He is found in his hallway stabbed to death in the chest, around 7pm whilst dressing to go to a function, with a stark look of amazed horror on his face that frightens the very polis themselves.
Many a folk have reason, but Jamie his estranged stepson is the suspect.
i/ Jamie is shown to have been 100 miles away an hour before, without a vehicle, he is found Innocent.
ii/ If 10 policemen and other lawyers were in the kitchen along the hall and saw Jamie rush at Lennie with an antique Kukri from the 1815 Nepalese Wars Lennie hung in the hallway above the umbrella stand, he is found Guilty.
iii/ if Jamie is solely seen exiting the front doorway holding the bluidy knife, but a girl testifies he and she were chatting at the gate when they heard a scream like a devil in hell, and Jamie ran in, whereupon he wrestled with a disappeared ruffian, more like a beast than a man, and snatched the knife; and a passing wee ned affirms they were at the gate, the only reasonable verdict is Not Proven.
Who the hell wants to put a possibly innocent man in a prison for 8 - 12 years ?
Actually only last night I was reading up on the Ardlamont Case, and all the Scots families associated, which was a famous instance. Most everyone agrees Monson was guilty, but what do I know ? I wasn’t around then, and I would no more accept the verdict of the rabble than I would jump off a castle wall in one of those jolly little mediaeval flying contraptions.
Senator Arlen Specter, citing his Scottish heritage, famously insisted on voting “Not Proven” at the impeachment of President Clinton. The clerk recorded it as a “Not Guilty” vote.
I see that Scotland doesn’t have hung juries in criminal trials, but what happens if there’s no agreement on how to acquit someone? If you have five votes to convict, five votes for not guilty, and five votes for not proven, that would be an acquittal but which kind?
The numbers would be higher if they could ask for a verdict of “innocent”,
but since asking to be-retried would still only give the court the choice between
Guilty and not guilty, it would hardly seem to provide the defendant any benefit…
Jay Hart said he was happy to be re-tried for three murders, because they were tried seperately before and there is argument it beats double jeopardy if there is new evidence and trial by media and public outrage… you know the deal. Jay hart then said “but I’ve already said too much” …well that sort of makes sense as he doesn’t want a media published version of his defense to be compared to his court version… But it sort of doesn’t make sense… “I want it out in the open, so I am still going to keep secrets and only say what is legally admissible and not blocked by my lawyer…”
Ah OP did meantion a plead of Innocent ?
Well that would mean having to prove that one is innocent, because the standard in criminal court is “proved beyond reasonable doubt”. Its nearly impossible for the defense to prove innocence… its harder to prove the non-existence of something… the non-existence of the damming evidence is harder to “prove” than the claim the prosecutors case is weak… It may just be that the prosecutor can’t get it the damming evidence… well you just want to say “the prosecutor failed to prove i am guilty”… ergo not proven or not guilty.
Morever does the defendant not want to confuse the jury if the defense fails to prove innocence, the court really doesn’t want you to waste court time, because if defense was setting about to PROVE something, they’d be able to ask more about the circumstantial about the witnesses, saying they need the witnesses life history to prove the defense’s case. And the appears if they only get “not guilt” instead of “innocent”…
I know of a case where the jury walked out, unfortunately went straight to lunch, but straight after lunch, counted their vote, walked back in and says “not guilty”, like a minute later than if they were demanding to return straight after lunch. The judge doesn’t even have the power to say “that clearly means innocent!” Meanwhile the police take other proceeedings, eg civil court, and there they say “he is so guilty we even prosecuted him… not that the verdict was guilty, but he is THAT guilty !”
There was a single panel comic in a Playboy many years ago with a judge sitting at his desk in a courtroom is telling a defendant “Although the jury failed to find you Guilty, it would be in poor taste for you to go around saying that you’re Innocent.”
