[lbo-talk] free Paris?

Jordan Hayes jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com
Thu May 10 22:05:03 PDT 2007

Mr. WD writes:

> A subsequent acquital does not mean the defendant was innocent -- it
> means the state couldn't prove the defendant's guilt beyond a
> reasonable doubt. That's why juries find people "not guilty" instead
> of "innocent."

Geeze, you lawyers. You say stuff like that as though it's wrong.

Yes, it's very important to remember that the two sides of the coin are guilty and not guilty. The onus is absolutely upon the state to prove guilt.

We like it that way, thanks. Maybe you don't.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list