In Scotland, a jury can issue three types of verdicts. Two of them, “guilty” and “not guility” are self explanitory. But they can also issue a “not proven” verdict when there is strong but not conclusive proof that someone commited a crime. Why? Is there anywhere else this is done? Does a “not proven” verdict cause legal problems for people in the rest of the UK or in foreign countries?
Can somebody appeal a “not proven” verdict? And if so, could they be found guilty at the retrial?
If the Wikipedia article is to be believed:
Originally where English law had the verdicts of “Guilty” and “Not Guilty”, Scottish law had “Proven” and “Not Proven” (with reference to the accusations for which the defendant was being tried).
In 1728 a Scottish jury insisted on finding a defendant “Not Guilty” and that verdict became popular in cases where acquittal was the proper verdict. “Not Proven” remained a valid verdict.
There is no lega distinction between “Not Guilty” and “Not Proven” – both leave the defendant free to go, and preclude further prosecution under the double jeopardy rule.
In practice, drawing on the terminological distinction of the two acquittal verdicts, the “Not Proven” verdict tends to be brought in when:
[ul][li]The prosecution has brought forward enough evidence to suggest that the defendant may be guilty of the alleged offense, so a “Not Guilty” verdict does not sit well with the judge or jury, but[/li]There is insufficient evidence to prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as would be required for a guilty verdict. Hence his guilt has not been proven.[/ul]
That makes it sound like “Not Guilty” was understood to mean Innocent. But Wiki suggests that the 1728 case was not an acquittal per se, but rather a jury nullification?
Well we have the non verdict of a hung jury. Isn’t that somewhat like “not proven” verdict ?
In which case the choice of words of the jury would make sense. They found that the prosecution had proven to their satisfaction that he had done X (whatever it was), so didn’t want to say “not proven”, but they felt that no guilt was attached to this act.
Not really. The primary difference, of course, is that a verdict of not proven is a real verdict. It is an acquittal. So, except for the new triple jeopardy rules in the UK (or possibly just England), you cannot be tried again. Also, the not proven verdict is used when the jury thinks the defendant is guilty but also thinks the prosecution hasn’t done its job. A hung jury, which is also possible in Scotland, doesn’t mean that. It means that some people think the defendant is guilty and others not.
The double jeopardy rule was changed in England & Wales in 2003 but it was only in March this year that it was changed in Scotland.
That’s a mistrial. It isn’t a verdict; it’s as if the trial never even occurred. There can either be a do-over or a dismissal at that point, depending on the prosecution’s judgment about why it happened.
Doesn’t a “not proven” verdict leave the defendant under a cloud that cannot be removed? Is that considered fair?
Has anyone with a Scottish “not proven” finding on their record ever had trouble with a background check either in Scotland or out of Scotland?
“Sorry, sir, we cannot offer you employment with New York MegaBigCo because your background check turned up a Scottish case where the verdict was “not proven”. This means that the jury found that you were probably guilty, but they somehow couldn’t prove it.”
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) alone voted “not proven” during President Clinton’s impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate in 1999, and Chief Justice Rehnquist, the presiding officer, allowed it.
So, does that mean that** 51** Senators thought clinton actually did do it?
Being found “not proven” should not show up in any criminal records check as legally it is the same as (and in fact predated) the verdict of “not guilty”, irrespective of the popular prejudice that it means “not guilty, but don’t do it again”.
The following guidance on criminal record check procedures to work at the SAC (Scottish Agriculture College) confirm they will not show up (see FAQs at the foot):
http://www.sac.ac.uk/mainrep/pdfs/disclosure.pdf
If the 1728 jury really wanted to acquit the accused, then the effect of this new “not guilty” verdict should have been to say that “not proven” means “we think he did it, but we don’t have enough proof”. That’s what everyone on this board wants “not proven” to mean. The problem is that it isn’t what “not proven” means.
Double Jeopardy is the acid test. If “not proven” means “we think he is guilty”, then there would be no double jeopardy problem. It would be very similar to a hung jury, except whereas a hung jury means “we can’t agree on a verdict, so you should have another trial”, “not proven” means “we all agree that you should find more evidence and then have another trial.”
I think you meant that for the Trivia Dominoes thread. 
Um, why did Scotland allow both verdicts to continue to exist after introducing “Not Guilty”, then? And, Keeve, if most people think a word has negative connotations, then so it does.
My point is this: In a system that has “guilty” and “not guilty”, I can easily understand how “not guilty” means “innocent”.
But in a system that has “proven”, “not proven” and “not guilty”, then it seems clear to me that “not proven” means “he did it, but we can’t prove that he did it”. The negative connotations of “not proven” refer to the proof, not to the guilt.
I do understand the history behind this. Originally “not proven” meant the same thing as “not guilty”. The problem is that the 1728 jury introduced a new type of verdict, and used words which made the “not proven” verdict seem like it ought to mean something other than it had meant up to that point. Things would’ve been simpler if they didn’t mess with the system.
My brains are almost, but not quite, that addled.
Actually, in the US, you don’t even have to be *convicted *of anything to face job discrimination; many applications simply want to know if you have been arrested.
Also, and this is somewhat off the topic, if you are charged with certain drug offenses, the police, not the courts, can confiscate your property even before you have been indicted!
That’s how it works in the US, but we are talking about Scotland. There is no such thing as a hung jury in a Scottish criminal trial. The defendant can be convicted by majority vote of the 15 jurors; if a majority is not achieved, the defendant is acquitted.
Would arrests even show up on a background check?