(LeModernCaveman) wrote in
message ...
David wrote:
It was not found that he did something legal.
It was found that he was not responsible for doing something illegal.

He did not do anything illegal.

Yes, that's what the jury decided.

There is a significant difference. There is a reason why the verdict
is not stated as "innocent," but rather as "not guilty."

He's INNOCENT, of what he's charged with.
Still a ****head for what he did, but being a ****head isn't against the law.

Some writers here should hope that does not become "against the law". :-)

'Even an innocent man must take ordinary precautions to defend himself.'
--Charles Dickens (Bleak House)

--Nick

(Nick) writes:

(LeModernCaveman) wrote in
message ...
David wrote:
It was not found that he did something legal.
It was found that he was not responsible for doing something illegal.

He did not do anything illegal.

Yes, that's what the jury decided.

No. The jury decided that the prosecution had not proved that he did
anything illegal.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/

Kenneth Sloan wrote in message
...
(Nick) writes:
(LeModernCaveman) wrote in
message ...
David wrote:
It was not found that he did something legal.
It was found that he was not responsible for doing something illegal.

He did not do anything illegal.

Yes, that's what the jury decided.

No. The jury decided that the prosecution had not proved that he did
anything illegal.

Dear Mr. Sloan,

Thanks, I concur. Your statement is more accurate than what I wrote in haste.

'When a wise man makes a false step, will he not go further than a fool?'
--George Meredith (The Ordeal of Richard Feverel)

--Nick

(Nick) writes:
No. The jury decided that the prosecution had not proved that he did
anything illegal.

Dear Mr. Sloan,

Thanks, I concur. Your statement is more accurate than what I wrote in haste.

You could also accurately say that Ken Sloan has (as far as we know)
never been convicted of murder, he has not been PROVEN to be a murderer.

Paul Rubin wrote in
message ...
(Nick) writes:
Ken Sloan wrote:
No. The jury decided that the prosecution had not proved that he did
anything illegal.

Thanks, I concur.
Your statement is more accurate than what I wrote in haste.

You could also accurately say that Ken Sloan has (as far as we know)
never been convicted of murder, he has not been PROVEN to be a murderer.

To be even more accurate: "The jury decided that the prosecution had not
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the
specific charge(s) brought against him or her at the criminal trial."

'I never quarrel with actions. My one quarrel is with words.'
--Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Gray)

--Nick

(Nick) writes:
You could also accurately say that Ken Sloan has (as far as we know)
never been convicted of murder, he has not been PROVEN to be a murderer.

To be even more accurate: "The jury decided that the prosecution had not
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the
specific charge(s) brought against him or her at the criminal trial."

Yes. Similarly, prosecutors haven't proven Ken Sloan beyond a
reasonable doubt to be guilty of murder.

Actually, I'm not even sure that the burden of proof was on the
prosecution in the Sherzer case. It was an uncontested fact that
Sherzer crossed state lines with intent to blah blah. He presented
the affirmative defense of entrapment and the jury accepted the
defense. But (maybe a legal expert can correct me if I'm wrong), I
think I heard somewhere that the burden of proving affirmative
defenses is on the defendant. Therefore, the jury did more than
simply find the prosecution didn't give sufficient evidence and that a
reasonable doubt remained, requiring acquittal. It acquitted Sherzer
because it actually made a finding of fact that he had been entrapped.

"Nick" wrote in message
om...

Dear Mr. Sloan,

Thanks, I concur. Your statement is more accurate than what I wrote in
haste.

"They had dead cats. I could smell them." -- H. Finn

StanB

It acquitted Sherzer
because it actually made a finding of fact that he had been entrapped.

Well, he should at least catch a beating. Nothing to bad mind you, just a good
beating to let him know it's not kosher for a 32 year old man to be attracted
to 15 year old girls.

"Mogath3" wrote in message
...
It acquitted Sherzer
because it actually made a finding of fact that he had been entrapped.

Well, he should at least catch a beating. Nothing to bad mind you, just a
good
beating to let him know it's not kosher for a 32 year old man to be
attracted
to 15 year old girls.

Jeeza Louise, give it a rest, will you?

Dear Mr. Rubin,

Heil Dubya!

Hear! Hear!

(Nick) writes:
No. The jury decided that the prosecution had not proved that he did
anything illegal.

Dear Mr. Sloan,

Thanks, I concur. Your statement is more accurate than what I wrote in
haste.

You could also accurately say that Ken Sloan has (as far as we know)
never been convicted of murder, he has not been PROVEN to be a murderer.


(However, paying our taxes and not being members of an underground, fighting
the government, aren't all we United Statesians murderers, throughout the
world, particularly, at this moment, in the east of the Arab world ?)

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 1 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus