That seems like an important argument. For instance, in the French system, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove guilt in any way, shape or form (actually, the prosecutor can perfectly, and sometimes do, state that he believes the accused to be innocent). So it has no burden of proof at all. On the other hand, the accusation doesn’t benefit from “the power of the state” since the case is handled by an independent magistrate who’s supposed to enquire on behalf of both the accusation and the defence. So, in theory at least, the huge means of the state (police officers, money, etc…) benefit to the accused as much as it does to the accusation, putting them on an equal footing.
Still, I feel I didn’t have an answer to my question about what is the meaning of a “non guilty” verdict in the USA, from a legal point of view, and whether or not this real meaning is different from the perception people generally have and express on this board or elsewhere.
Well… if there was an a priori assumption that the non-guilty verdict is a definite evidence that O.J. Simpson did not in fact kill his wife, and given how much coverage the trial got, the case could be made that there was indeed a “reckless disregard for the truth”.
And it would help answering my question (sorry for insisting).
What I’ve never understood was why Goldman deserved any money to begin with. While I feel sympathy for the Goldman family, Ronald was the adult son of the plaintiff who was not and likely never would be financially responsible for the family. He left no children behind. I’m sure his company would be missed, but $33M missed I doubt it. While I understand the desire to punish Simpson, I can’t help but believe this was an abuse of the legal system and a cash grab.
As far as Simpson getting off in the first place, it was a combination of reasonably smart defense lawyers who were shameless in using the “Chewbacca defense” (the whole race angle), incompetent prosecutors who made multiple mistakes (getting fiber evidence thrown out because they didn’t enter in time, the glove, Marcia Clark not stepping down when it was shown that the female jurors hated her personally, etc.), criminally incompetent police investigators (they brought Simpson’s blood sample TO THE CRIME SCENE to enter it into evidence-That alone should have gotten O.J. off), a detective that lied about a racial slur that had nothing to do with anything, a star-fucker judge who was more interested in being on TV and meeting movie stars than presiding over a case (he stopped proceedings one day so he could give Richard Dreyfuss a tour), and a jury of idiots that were forced to be sequestered during a trial that lasted from January 25, 1995 until October 3, 1995 who only deliberated 3 hours. I had jury duty this summer and it was annoying how you would wait all day then they would rush to get you to the court and then make you wait for hours and then dismiss the case anyway. It was all part of the process and sometimes just us standing outside was enough for defendants to plead out. I couldn’t imagine what that could have been like for 9 months (at least I slept in my own bed at night). I fully believe they threw out the case just because they resented how the trial was run. There were so many mistakes made in that trial that the verdict was not necessarily indicative of the true story, so it wouldn’t have taken much for a civil case presented competently to find Simpson liable.
To try to respond substantively, here is an old-ish but very eloquent article discussing exactly the misconceptions you wonder about. It’s written by an actual lawyer and law professor-two qualifications I lack-and which give it some authority in its explanation of the law.
To the point you raise in your post—you’re right that if we considered a “not guilty” verdict to be evidence of factual innocence, it might well raise the chances of defamation (though if you took that approach, it would more likely be a claim of knowing falsehood).
However, were we to live in a world where a not guilty verdict includes a finding of factual innocence, we’d expect to see several things that we don’t see in the real world.
First, we’d expect to see exactly the kind of lawsuits for defamation you talk about. I don’t see that to be true-and I think that if they could possibly be brought in such a situation, O.J. would have brought several by now.
Further if that assumption were true, we’d be shocked to find a civil judgment holding O.J. liable could stand consistent with his acquittal. The fact is, agree with it or not, O.J.'s civil judgment has survived just fine.
On a further note, it would help to answer your question if you were more clear about what the explanations in this thread lack that leave you unsatisfied (I mean this as nothing other than a good faith attempt to find out what you’re hoping to find, in the effort of trying to provide it).
A number of us have tried to explain what an acquittal means in a court setting. (to summarize, it means the jury did not feel that the prosecution had proven every element of the offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The thing that bars a second prosecution isn’t any finding-it’s the constitutional protection against double jeopardy-which bars a second trial regardless of whether the first trial ended with a verdict of guilty or of not guilty.)
I’m not sure whether you think we’re not clear (and I, at least, am happy to admit that I’m often not), if you disagree, if you’re looking for some authority,—and if you can be more specific, I at least enjoy trying to find the answers to such questions.
Also, I’m not sure what the “real meaning” you think other people espouse is (I’m not saying I disagree that one exists-but you’re the one insisting on an answer to your question—and at least to me, you expanding on that will help me try and find you an answer).
But that’s the point: It’s not. A court’s ruling might be evidence of truth in a defamation case, but it’s not dispositive. And a criminal court’s acquittal of an accused is never a finding of innocence.
The fact that everyone else saw the evidence as well gives us a right to decide on our own what the truth was. A court doesn’t decide “truth” except in terms of criminal liability at issue in the case.
It would probably be useful to talk about what “actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth” means.
“Actual malice” means that you intentionally, with knowledge that what you’re saying is false, make a false statement of fact that harms a person’s reputation. Saying “O.J. is a murder” is not actual malice if you actually believe he’s a murderer. You have to yourself believe what you’re saying is false.
“Reckless disregard for the truth” means that even if you don’t actually know what you’re saying is false, that a reasonable person would have reason to suspect that it is false or with ordinary effort you would be able to find out whether it’s false. This is usually relevant with things like gossip columnists. “Well, X told me that Y is a convicted murder. I didn’t know that X was lying.”
O.J. wouldn’t win on either of these, because the facts of his case are so widely known that a reasonable person could reasonably believe that he is an unconvicted murderer.
Furthermore, O.J. would have to show that he has actually or is likely to suffer harm to his reputation. If a substantial number of people already believe he’s an unconvicted murderer, it doesn’t really harm his reputation for one more person to say so.
Well… I’m not sure how to explain it clearly. Let’s try way : apart from the fact that the accused is free to go instead of being jailed, what are consequences and implications of a “non-guilty” verdict under US law? What are its effects once everybody left the courtroom where the trial took place?
At this point, after reading the thread, your post and link, and the last posts by ** acsenray **, I think I must assume that it has no implications at all, and no bearing on anything and is only relevant for the trial itself (and an hypothetical new criminal trial for the exact same crime, due to double jeopardy).
And in particular is immaterial with regard to any kind of lawsuit that could be related to the case, like the award of damages for wrongful death (even in the hypothetical situation where the evidences presented would be exactly the same and the jury could not, for some reason, reasonnably reach his decision of awarding damage for any other reason that by making the assumption that the defendant indeed did exactlly what he was found not guilty of during the criminal trial) or a potential lawsuit for slander.
I’m not sure how to express it clearly. Let’s try : A “non guilty” verdict, under US law, has no meaning or implications at all except regarding the direct consequences (sentencing, appeal, etc…) of the criminal trial itself. Can I say that?
Assuming that I’m correct up to this point, what about other criminal trials somehow related to the case (trial of a different individual for the same or a related crime, or of the same individual for a directly related crime, or of the same individual for a different aspect of the same crime in a different juridiction, or something like that) Does a previous “non guilty” verdict has any bearing on them or could it as well be non-existing for all that matter?
And finally, I’m tempted to ask if the same things could be said for countries with similar criminal proceedings, like the UK, Australia, etc…
I don’t believe it was ever about the money-Goldman wanted revenge, and whether that’s right or not, that’s what it was about. And let’s face it-the criminal trial was a joke.
I’m just getting back to this thread after an absence. Just wanted to say a quick thank you to whorfin for post 75. I appreciate the effort to answer my question, and that helped, thanks.
This just can’t be accurate. Isn’t it true that it is exactly the finding of “not guilty” that constitutionally bars a second trial? If I’m found “guilty”, I can appeal and the appeal can result in a second trial. If that trial also ends with a finding of “guilty” I can appeal again and (theoretically, at least) get a third trial. And if that ends in “guilty” I can (theoretically) continue ad infinitum.
But once a trial results in a “not guilty” verdict, that’s it; the state cannot appeal. I cannot be re-tried for that offense ever again. Isn’t that the case?
I’d feel comfortable calling him a murderer. He could sue me, and a civil jury could (once again) independently evaluate the reasonableness of my defense, viz., that truth is an absolute defense to libel charges. I suspect he would introduce evidence of his criminal acquittal. So what, I would say. We all know those jurors were dopes. Certainly I (as a non-party to the criminal suit) am not in any way collaterally estopped from re-arguing whether he’s a murderer.
The state can appeal on certain procedural grounds (if the judge did something insane or clearly wrong that tied the State’s hands, kept out crucial evidence). But generally you are correct that the State can’t call for a do-over on the substantive question of whether he’s guilty or not (whereas the defendant can, if found guilty).
A caveat is in order as to “cannot be re-tried for that offense.” Someone mentioned Rodney King. The federal charges, although they arose out of the very same conduct and circumstances as the state charges, were okay because they were brought under a different theory – the cops were charged with having violated his civil rights while acting under color of law pursuant to a federal statute (side note: the earlier reference to civil rights in the O.J. case was a red herring because only a state actor can violate your civil rights (hence the “under color of law.”)). In a sense, the root of their crime was not beating the crap out of a guy, but beating the crap out of a guy while wearing police uniforms. The state charges (for the same conduct) were based on a theory of battery or some more garden variety criminal charge for don’t-beat-the-crap-out-of-people (I forget if there were also state charges for some flavor of official misconduct or the like).
And: You could be charged for the very same crime if you were charged by two different sovereigns. Let’s say your state has a law about making or possessing a terroristic device. We know the Feds have an identical law. You could be acquitted at the state level and with no problem be tried for a federal charge on the same theory.
No, it’s the end of the first trial either way. And here’s why-let’s imagine a bank robbers tried, found guilty, convicted, sentenced, and serves his time in prison.
He gets out, but as soon as he gets out, a cop walks up to him and says “You’re under arrest for robbing the first national bank six years ago”.
Our anti-hero says “but… you already did that… .and you tried me, and convicted me… it’s five years ago because I’ve been in prison”
And the cop says “So, you confess, eh?”
We want a rule of preclusion that avoids that too–and as I understand it, that’s prevented by double jeopardy just the same. (with the qualifications others have listed-that it only protects against one sovereign, etc, etc.).
As I understand it (IANAL), why there isn’t double jeopardy if you appeal is that there isn’t a final verdict/resolution to the trial. The case isn’t over. a new trial can result, which is really a continuation of the first prosecution.
when you’re convicted, that is a final judgment of the kind we want to trigger double jeopardy.
Not guilty-the case is over. done. Final judgment-no second prosecution. (with some very narrow exceptions others mention).
well, IANAL, but that looks pretty good (if we include the issues of double jeopardy, as above discussed, in the "direct consequences).
Maybe the best way I’ve thought of to think of it is that it really doesn’t change anything in the contexts you’re thinking about -the defendant walked into the courtroom not convicted of a crime, and walked out not convicted of a crime.
That is not to deny that an acquittal may have great weight in the court of public opinion, it may well be pointed to as an exoneration.–but when you think of what it means to the defendant, it means he can walk out the courtroom door, just like he could the day before he was arrested.
These, I’m not that sure about. Any trial of the same guy for related things would probably be a double jeopardy issue, and depend on what charges, where brought, etc, etc.
Trial of a different individual–I don’t think it should make any difference. (but intuitively, I wonder about that where A is found guilty of committing a crime on his own—we don’t want the two to be independent when trying B on the theory that he committed that crime on her own) (at the very least, that would be pretty awesome evidence for B’s defense team)
You’re only ever going to get one trial. An appeal is not a new trial. It’s a review limited to the facts, evidence, and conclusions raised in the trial court. The Appeals court will decide if the trial court interpreted and applied the law correctly as far as procedural things that can impact the merits of the case (like suppression of evidence, jury instructions). An appeals court cannot say “guilty” or “not guilty” – they can say “affirmed” “reversed” or “remanded” (sent back down to trial court for reconsideration of some particular aspect, usually sentencing in a criminal trial)
The exception is a review on habeus corpus (sometimes called a collateral attack). If you can raise a non-frivolous argument that you were arrested and imprisoned in violation of the law because of some wrongdoing on the part of the State (hint: 4th, 5th, 6th Amendment) you can instigate a completely new trial and thus introduce additional facts if they have come to light.
You can make a motion for a new trial after being convicted, but the court definitely does not have to grant it (by comparison, in some states, you have a right to an appeal). An appeals court can remand for a new trial, I think it tries to avoid it if it can. Usually remands are more narrow than that, and go to sentencing. But an appeal is not a trial, and an appeals court does not automatically order an entire new trial. They would pretty much have to find that the original trial lacked fundamental fairness.
Okay, I follow you now. In my state (and in the federal courts), new trials are appropriate remedies in some appeals, but not in others. I appealed one case where the trial judge improperly allowed the district attorney to impeach the defendant with some prior convictions that were too remote to legally use against him under state law, and the remedy in that case was a reversal and a remand to the trial court for a new trial. On the other hand, I have a case up on an issue of legal and factual sufficiency right now, and the if that one goes our way the remedy would be a reversal and remand to the trial court with an instruction to enter a judgment of acquittal.