Not proven has exactly the same effect as not guilty, but your lecturer’s definition is pretty much how the legal establishment view it - although the verdict is never defined for the jury. It’s also a bit of a cop out verdict for juries who don’t want to bite the bullet!
Despite the position being explained clearly to them, some jurors still believe that the accused can be retried if they find him not proven.
The verdict is a bit of a pain, and many of us would rather it were removed. I don’t see it happening anytime soon, but who knows what the wacky Scottish Executive will get up to next!
First of all, Short, there is absolutely no way to re-try a case in the same court after a criminal acquittal, regardless of any “new evidence.” See Blockberger v. U.S.'s “same elements test” to determine what other crimes might be charged - but an acquittal acts as an absolute bar against reprosecution.
You’re correct that the dual sovereignty allows the federal government to try a case after a State acquittal. And technically, I think Bartkus is still good law - although substantially viatiated by the holding in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). Benton explicitly applies the double jeopardy bar to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s also violative of the “Petite policy” established by the Justice Department in the wake of Petite v. U.S., 361 U.S. 529 (1960), which forbids the federal government from creating multiple prosecutions if several offenses arise out of a single transaction. The Petite policy is admittedly not case law, and is not binding on the government.
But the practical problem against the federal courts taking a second bite of the apple after a state acquittal is as Cliffy suggests - there is no generic federal theft statue, for example. If I rob a Richmond convenience store armed with a knife, that’s clearly armed robbery under Virginia’s laws. If I’m acquitted by a Virginia court, under what federal law do you propose to retry me?
So, then: What about Federal prosecution under ‘violating a person’s civil rights’? Isn’t that what was used against the officers in the Rodney King case?
I mean, OK, you can’t get (for example) OJ on murder, but if you could find evedence that conclusivly proves he was guilty, could the Feds go after him for violating Goldman’s and his wife’s Civil Rights? Ditto for Mel Ignatow?
I’m pretty sure that the Federal civil rights charges against the officers in the Rodney King case arose specifically because they were police officers. O.J. isn’t a police officer, and I don’t think there is a Federal civil right not to be murdered by another citizen.
Here in Texas, Darly Routier is in jail pending appeal of her death sentence for killing one of her two children. The other child was murdered in the same incident, but the prosecutors only filed an indictment for one of the murders. If for some reason her conviction is overturned in such a way that they can’t re-try the case, guess what happens next?
Here in Texas, Darly Routier is in jail pending appeal of her death sentence for killing one of her two children. The other child was murdered in the same incident, but the prosecutors only filed an indictment for one of the murders. If for some reason her conviction is overturned in such a way that they can’t re-try the case, guess what happens next?
Not proven is usually taken to mean “we know you did it, but we can’t prove it.”
Back to the OP; there have been a number cases in English courts recently where a defendant has been acquitted in a criminal case, so the victim (or relatives of the victim) have raised a civil action against the person instead. I think the relative amount of proof and laws governing evidence are different. The verdict isn’t the same either, like a verdict of murder isn’t possible, but you can still get a verdict against the defendant and maybe even a sum of money awarded against them. It isn’t as good as a criminal conviction, but they at least get the satisfaction of finally proving their case. (Suppose they do win, of course.)
This happens in the US, too. In fact, after OJ was acquitted of murder, he was sued (by the Goldman family, IIRC) for causing the wrongful death of Ron Goldman. He was found responsible and ordered to pay alot of money to the Goldman family. The standard of evidence is lower in civil courts. To be convicted of a criminal offense, the State (or Crown in England) must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In other words, you’re only supposed to convict somebody of a crime if you’re absolutely sure that they’re guilty. If you think that the defendant is probably guilty, but you’re not totally sure, then you’re supposed to acquit the defendant.
On the other hand, civil courts operate on the system of proof “by a preponderance of evidence.” If you think that someone is probably responsable for an offense, but you’re not 100% sure, then that’s good enough to find then civilly responsible. Of course, civil courts can get away with having lower standards of evidence because they can’t send anybody to prison.
I stand corrected. There is no law under which a theft (or most other crimes) could be tried in federal court after acquittal in state court under ordinary circumstances.
On the other hand, I also found out that places outside the territorial waters of the US may fall in federal jurisdiction if they have guano on them:
Every day I discover new reasons to be impressed with the intricacies of the American legal system.
Thank you - and I say this only because acknowledging an incorrect post seems to be something that not everyone does. Many posters, if called on their inaccuracies, never acknowledge the correction, and deftly shift the argument or discussion away. It’s… frustrating sometimes. In any event, thanks.
Of course… in those places, there’s no state government law to get into jeopardy with…
I seem to recall a Cecil column about President Millard Fillmore having something to do with ensuring U.S. interests in guano-rich areas. Perhaps the federal law you quote is his legacy…
That’s right. I imagine the officers were prosecuted under 28 USC 1983. Section 1983 criminalizes the violation of another’s rights “under color of state law.” There’s rather a lot of controversy about what that phrase means around the edges, but it clearly means to separate public/governmental from private conduct.
In the U.S., this public/private distinction is very important and pops up all over the place in the law. One reason is that the government has vast intrinsic powers that private individuals don’t. For instance, the government can take your life or liberty as long as they give you due process (that is, a fair hearing of some appropriate kind). It can take your property as long as it gives you due process and just compensation (that is, it pays you a fair price). Private persons cannot take any of those things without your consent. (Even if they offer to pay you more for your car than it’s worth, you don’t have to give it to them.) If they try, they go to jail. Since the government has the legal power to deprive you of life, liberty and property without your consent, the law provides many safeguards, ideally to ensure that it does so only when necessary and when you are afforded due process and (in the case of takings of property) just compensation.
