What is the name of a judicial finding of "innocent"?
929169
It is not a finding of "innocent".  There is no finding of innocent in criminal court anywhere.  It is a judgement not withstanding the verdict or JNOV.
54770
Yes. District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals\n\nWEEKS v. U S , 245 U.S. 618 (1918)\n\nThis was a prosecution under the Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768, upon a charge of shipping an article of food in interstate commerce in circumstances making the shipment a violation of the act. The information contained two counts, both charging that the article was misbranded-one because it bore a false and misleading label, and the other because it was offered for sale as lemon oil when in truth it was an imitation thereof containing alcohol and citral derived from lemon grass. In the District Court there was a conviction upon both counts, and the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction as [245 U.S. 618, 620] to the first count and affirmed it as to the second. 224 Fed. 64, 139 C. C. A. 626. The judgment upon the latter is all that is brought here for review.\n\nIn the Circuit Court of Appeals the view was expressed [245 U.S. 618, 623] that intent was not an element of the offense charged in the second count and therefore that it was immaterial whether the representations of the salesman had the sanction of the defendant. Complaint is now made of this. But the question is not in the case, the view expressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals not being essential to an affirmance of the judgment. The District Court had expressly instructed the jury that to hold the defendant responsible criminally by reason of such representations it must appear, and appear beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were made by his authority. The record before us does not show that the defendant objected to the submission of this question to the jury in this way; neither does it purport to contain all the evidence. The verdict therefore must be taken as conclusively determining that the representations were made with the defendant's sanction.\n\nJudgment affirmed
925926
One who did not commit any crime or offense is innocent.
571083
When I'm conducting an investigation, I might refer to the subject's criminal history to see what they've done before.  If I see an arrest (but no conviction) for sexual assault, for example, then my opinion of the person is that, okay...maybe this guy did it before, and he might be the right guy this time.\n\nIf I see an arrest, but then a not guilty verdict, I still tend to think the guy was good for it then and might be good for it today.  Just being found not guilty does not mean the person didn't do the crime...it can mean that, and it can also mean a dozen other things.\n\nIf I see a conviction, then I am pretty comfortable saying the guy did it then, and he might well have done it today.\n\nI think reasonable investigators realize that just because you've been arrested for something does not necessarily mean you were guilty of the crime you were arrested for...that's not the standard used for making an arrest. \n\nHowever, I have seen very few people in my career that have been arrested for something they truly didn't do...so seeing an arrest on a criminal history printout is, in my mind, almost as good as seeing a conviction.\n\nBUT...and before anyone goes beserk over this...what I think in my mind means nothing to proving a case.  I might think and feel very strongly that my crook did this particular burglary because he's been arrested for it before, but what I think is not evidence.  If I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime, all the past arrests (without convictions) in the world aren't going to amount to anything.  They'll make me suspicious as can be, but they don't add up to guilt.\n\nHope that's the answer you were looking for.  An interesting question!
797410
Too many issues to open that can of worms. However, there are some loopholes in the current system, for example it may be possible to bring different charges for the same crime like manslaughter instead of murder, depends on your luck with the judge since much of law today is judicial discretion & bench precedent. It a person gets off and then confesses (on tape, provable), if that person testified at the trial and said they were innocent, s/he could be charged with perjury among other things. It would be very foolish to confess though, because even if the person gets off legally, there are still civil lawsuits and consequences that are not so easily dismissed.
764868
God points.  Get some more evidence.  If the judge can be convinced that she is a liar it will hurt her case and help yours. So far you are not convincing. What is her evidence?
19086
It is a misspelled "res ipsa loquitur", which is a noun:   a rule of evidence whereby the negligence of an alleged wrongdoer can be inferred from the fact that the accident happened (the thing speaks for itself).
536755
A civil case is when one person sues another for some wrong done to them.  If the jury thinks the person is guilty, they will award money to the victim.  Unlike criminal cases, guilt does not have to be proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt in civil trials.  Example, OJ Simpson.  He was not found guilty (even though he was) in criminal court, so his wife's family could have (I can't remember if they actually did or not) sued him in a civil court.  If found guilty, he would be fined however much the jury felt was fair.
811035
It should be called..."the rights of the "snitch"...most of the time it is called "States evidence"...wher a criminal would receive no or lesser sentence for their crime if they testify for the prosecution and convince the court/jury of the prosecutions case against the defendant whom in "many cases"; has comited a lesser crime.\nAs for ethical? No it isnt. If I were a judge and even a juror on such a case, I would give them whom cannot do their job properly and or effectively the business.
134830
You are asking two questions. Guilty? \n\nHe is innocent at the moment until proved guilty, which the court will decide on the evidence presented.\n\nDoes he deserve to be on trial? Yes, from what has been reported. But I have no first hand knowledge.
1167077
innocent to be locked up.  if someone has a propensity for criminal behavior, there is a chance they will meet justice eventually.
1088053
wrongful conviction is a civil matter, not criminal
771777
http://www.findlaw.com/\n\nWorx for all sorts of cases no matter how small or how large.
484593
It sounds like she has a very twisted understanding of "reasonable doubt".  The phrase, as you mentioned, is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which means that prudent/reasonable men, after evaluating all the evidence presented, are clearly, entirely, and morally convinced of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.  It is, in effect, saying "there is no doubt", but since we all make mistakes, we can only say we are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".  The evidence either adds up to guilt or innocence, or does not.  A jury can not imagine evidence to find a person guilty if there was not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.  That's what the prosecutor is doing here, if what you say is true and I understand it correctly.  "Reasonable doubt" is a standard that suggests evidence is lacking to convict or acquit -- NOT that reasonable persons can have it (doubt) and convict or acquit anyway.  (That is, if a jury does not have sufficient evidence to convict a defendant, they can not imagine evidence to convict.  If there was not enough evidence to find the defendant guilty, the defendant is innocent/acquitted.)\n\n\n"Reasonable doubt.  If, upon proof, there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it." -- Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed.  It is not "okay" to have doubt and convict anyway -- which is what the prosecutor is trying to claim, it seems.\n\nLawyers can say almost anything they want in closing arguments.  The defense should correct this misunderstanding in its closing argument.  The judge, in delivering instructions to the jury, should define reasonable doubt and beyond reasonable doubt.  The defense should (have) requested this.\n\nIf you want legal definitions, e-mail me & I can type them out for you.\n\nIf an Appeal is made, you can mention all these concerns - whether it is with your present attorney or another.  Try to be sure, the judge instructs the jury properly.\n\n\nNOTE:  I am NOT a lawyer.\n\n(I hope this is understandable - I'm pretty tired.)\nE-mail me if I can help in any way.\n\nPeace.\n\nP.S.  The circle with the quarter shaded in sounds like an argument for the defense.  If I were the defense attorney, I might use it [repetition] and say "here's your doubt!  And if there is that much doubt, you can not convict!"  (And of course, mention the evidence lacking or against prosecution.)
448573
WH I am not sure of.  However, the ADJ means adjudicated I would imagine guilty since a sentence was rendered, and the susp ent sent, means that the disposition was a suspended sentence.
934003
First impulse: yes.\n\nThen, I remember we have a nasty tendancy to imprison/punish the innocent, so the evidence would have to be pretty overwhelming. Otherwise, no.
748828
Innocent until proven guilty.\nSeparation of church and state.\nOne man, one vote.\nWith justice and liberty for all.