TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:You guys are a laugh a minute.

"Not guilty" results when in the view of the jury, or trier of fact, the prosecution does not prove each and every element of the charge(s) "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is another result, not necessarily formally recognized in the law, "innocent" after being convicted, and later exonerated. This is usually because improved forensics shows that the convicted person had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

I posted an article here a little while back about this. Texas leads the country in exonerations, by a wide margin. The thread devolved into statistical mumbo jumbo attempting to avoid the worrisome possibility that juries are not as careful as they need to be, or maybe that law enforcement isn't.

Innocent people are being convicted of very serious crimes wrongfully. Those guys ought to be paid from state funds.

It is hard to hold the prosecutor liable in the absence of evidence of malice, or other bad acts, suppression of exculpatory evidence, intimidation of witnesses, subirning perjury, etc. Those of you who have done more than one trial probably realize how trials don't always go as scripted. Witnesses blow their stories, exhibits don't get admitted, witnesses are effectively impeached. Ask the LA DAs who tried OJ how this happens!