Re: [Leica] Current Events

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

Marc,

You're correct - and I heartily agree with your frustration about the
confusion in this country between "innocent" and "guilty." However, the
French photographers were never formallycharged, and this was not their
trial. They were merely one part of an extensive investigation. It was the
conclusion of that investigation that they had done nothing criminal. This
might be more akin to a grand jury in this country refusing to indict
someone after investigating the facts.

Yes, it does not prove innocence - but then, nothing really does. In the
United States there is a presumption of innocence which means that someone
found by a jury to be not guilty is therefore presumed innocent. I don't
think the French have the same presumption and I don't know what effect the
report has regarding res judicata or collateral estoppel (if any).

Bryan


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Current Events


> At 07:39 PM 9/6/1999 -0700, Bryan Caldwell wrote:
> >Please tell me if that is misreading the report.
>
> Well, yes and no.  What you cited was the heart of the report.  What the
> American media left out was WHY the judge ruled that way.  They
interpreted
> it as if it were an Ameican judge making the ruling.
>
> Under the Civil Law system, the judge examined the government's evidence
> and found it was insufficient to support a conviction.  Hence, the
> Defendants won.  So, the judge entered a series of rulings in favour of
the
> Defendants.  It doesn't mean they weren't guilty:  it just means the
> government couldn't prove its case.
>
> The American media is constantly confusing "not guilty" and "innocent" in
> the same way.  If the government fails to prove a criminal act to the
> satisfaction of the trier of fact, that doesn't mean the Defendants didn't
> do it;  it just means the government failed to prove their case, a
> different thing totally.  Witness the mush Marsha Clark made of the OJ
> trial -- an easy win for most prosecutors, she so overplayed a winning
case
> that he got off, which both cost her her job, and made her rich.
>
> A jury or bench-trial verdict will be "not guilty" under the Common Law --
> meaning, "you are not found guilty".  "Innocent" means you didn't do it,
> and no criminal system will go that far!
>
> Marc
>
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
> Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
>