Arrested, not Convicted

[CarmelHP]

You say he didn't commit the crime? Were you there? A judge found it was more likely than not that he did based on the evidence at the time. You are confusing committing a crime with being convicted of committing a crime. All the non-guilty verdict means is that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime.

That's like saying OJ did not commit a crime when he killed his ex or her boyfriend.

Now the point of my post was to answer the guy who asked if it is common for prosecution to continue when all the evidence points to innocence. None of the evidence in this case points to innocence except the testimony of a bunch of robbers and the denials of the accused.

An acquittal is as good as saying that he committed no crime in the eyes of the law.

 

[IndianaGTI]

Were you there?

Oh brother.

What basis do you have to believe he did not commit the crime?

A finding of not guilty is not a finding that someone did not commit a crime.


If someone had committed a crime, what would their answer likely be in regards to whether or not they had?

If there was not probable cause to believe he had committed the crime, he can get the arrest expunged from his record. That's the law.

 

[IndianaGTI]

An acquittal is as good as saying that he committed no crime in the eyes of the law.

An acquittal does not however say that the person is innocent as the threadjacker commented. A person can be acquitted and still found to have commited the act. Look at the OJ case.

 

[Fargo]

An acquittal does not however say that the person is innocent as the threadjacker commented. A person can be acquitted and still found to have commited the act. Look at the OJ case.

OJ wasn't "found to have commited the act" in his civil trial. It was found that it was more likely than not that he had committed the act which is a huge difference. His criminal jury found that it had not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the act.

That said, you are ignoring the fundamental presumption of innocence in the legal system. You are presumed NOT to have committed the act until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal matters. If the prosecution fails to meet that burden, you remain presumed innocent.

As Carmel points out, in the eyes of the law, it isn't necessary for the jury to find that you DIDN'T do it, only that it hasn't been proven that you did.

Also, I'm curious where you're "more likely than not" definition of probable cause comes from. Last I read that definition had been explicitly rejected by the courts. I have never seen PC determinations based upon that standard. Illinois V. Gates set it at:

Probable cause turns on a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit . . . there is a fair probability that the subject has committed a crime or evidence of a crime will be found. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).

and that is the standard the Indiana Supreme Court uses in cases like:

http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04151001trb.pdf

"Fair probability" is far from more likely than not.

Joe

 

[IndianaGTI]

OJ wasn't "found to have commited the act" in his civil trial. It was found that it was more likely than not that he had committed the act which is a huge difference. His criminal jury found that it had not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the act.

That said, you are ignoring the fundamental presumption of innocence in the legal system. You are presumed NOT to have committed the act until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal matters. If the prosecution fails to meet that burden, you remain presumed innocent.

As Carmel points out, in the eyes of the law, it isn't necessary for the jury to find that you DIDN'T do it, only that it hasn't been proven that you did.

Also, I'm curious where you're "more likely than not" definition of probable cause comes from. Last I read that definition had been explicitly rejected by the courts. I have never seen PC determinations based upon that standard. Illinois V. Gates set it at:

and that is the standard the Indiana Supreme Court uses in cases like:

http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04151001trb.pdf

"Fair probability" is far from more likely than not.

Joe

Yes, that is what I was saying. Look through all posts. I am not saying the guy committed or did not commit the crime. Merely explaining to the threadjacker why he was prosecuted. As far as PC goes, I was going from US SC..."would lead a man of reasonable prudence to believe". This may be less than more likely than not too. Point was that he was prosecuted because the evidence he arrived and left with people committing a robbery and everyone always says that they didn't know what their buddies were doing.

 

[88GT]

That is a kind of loaded question. EVERY get away driver and every accessory was just giving their buddy a ride and had no idea that their buddy had went in to rob the place.

Honestly, would you believe the guy that went with his buddies to a robbery and was caught with them in the get away car after the robbery? Apparently, he even admits he was with them immediately before and immediately after the robbery.

What would the lookout say? "I had no idea that they were robbing the place. I didn't have a gun. I didn't know anything about what was going on."

What exactly was this "evidence [that] clearly supports "innocence""? In this case, it sounds like the circumstantial evidence clearly supports his guilt. You also have to understand that a finding of not guilty means that there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. The finding of probable cause by the judge means that the judge found that it was more likely than not that he committed the crime.

You need to work on your internet reading comprehension and contextual clues. Did you not notice the use of the quotation marks around the word 'innocent'? Did you not understand, then, that the literal definition of the word was not intended?

I'd also like to know how you can be so confident of the nature of the evidence, particularly in light of the fact that man in question was acquitted. And where the hell does probable cause come into this? Unless you were there, you've got no more cause to claim it supported his guilt than I did to claim it supported his innocence (except I have the jury's verdict on my side ). Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is NOT evidence of guilt. And that's the only evidence we have to make a judgment. It kinda irritates me that it's enough for you to convict him too.

The long of short of it is this: no one goes to trial to learn the facts of the case. Prosecution knew long before trial what kind of evidence they had to back their case. It's a leap of faith, but based on the OP's description of the incident (presumably as the friend told it) and the acquittal at trial, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the evidence wasn't there. That in all likelihood, this was a zealous prosecutor attempting to get all the parties present, not all the parties involved. After all, if the jury heard something that cast doubt on the guilt, the prosecution knew about it too, no? If all they had was his presence, I wouldn't convict either. And it seems that that is all they had.

IOW, I think the prosecution may have known their case against the OP's friend was weak but went ahead anyway just for the hell of it. One more conviction to help pad the average, if you will. I'm betting they knew it was a long-shot and went ahead any way for selfish reasons. Which brings me to my original question. Is it common for prosecution to proceed with trials in which the evidence is weak and doesn't support a conviction?

 

[IndianaGTI]

Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is NOT evidence of guilt. And that's the only evidence we have to make a judgment.

Seems like you need to work on your reading comprehension too. You attack someone but clearly have not read the posts. I have stated several times that I have no idea whether or not he was involved, however the evidence does not support his innocence.

Being in the wrong place at the wrong time IS evidence of guilt. It is called circumstantial evidence. Some convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence.

 

[IndianaGTI]

You asked the question btw 88GT. I answered. The evidence did not support his innocence in any way shape or form. Also, there is likely to have been additional evidence which did not get presented to the jury. There usually is. Often times, Motions in Limine to exclude certain evidence are not presented until immediately before trial.

Was trying to answer your question. I have to guess that you did not like the answer since your post seemed attacking.

 

[Cherryspringer]

Hopefully Americans still have to be convicted before their rights are taken away. If this isn't what is happening you should make a stand.

 

[PistolBob]

You asked the question btw 88GT. I answered. The evidence did not support his innocence in any way shape or form. Also, there is likely to have been additional evidence which did not get presented to the jury. There usually is. Often times, Motions in Limine to exclude certain evidence are not presented until immediately before trial.

Was trying to answer your question. I have to guess that you did not like the answer since your post seemed attacking.

I'm curious, what internet website gave you a internet license to practice internet law on the internet?