I wonder whether we should copy the Scotish verdit of "Not Proven"

[question everything]

In addition to our guilty and not guilty.

Whiny Donny was found not to have committed a crime, yet, was not exonerated.

The prosecution in Chicago decided to drop charges against Jussie Smollet but he, too, was not exonerated.

(Sorry to include both in the same post but, really..)

[greyl]

1. "was found not to have committed a crime" is not established by the Barr letter. nt

[dchill]

3. The only thing established by the Barr "Letter" is...

That Barr is going to deliver on the promise that he made to the Lying Nazi in Chief. He is a stain on his profession. The Mueller Report will not see the light of day until after a long court battle - or a patriotic leak. Preferably, the latter. A report that was obviously intended for Congress has become a purloined letter.

[Azathoth]

2. Nope, because then most not guilty verdicts would switch to "not proven"

Citizens are entitled to a clear name unless they are proven guilty. The entire point of our criminal justice system is that the burden of proof rests with the state. A "not proven" option would become the baseline verdict for every jury, meaning that every single defendant would have their own burden of proof to meet in order to affirmatively prove their lack of guilt (and as we all know, proving a negative can be exceedingly hard). Telling an innocent person that she must prove her innocence is immoral. Even worse, society would quickly start treating people with "not proven" crimes the same way they treat convicted felons -- employment discrimination, etc. -- and thus police and prosecutors would have the power to turn someone into a quasi-felon for life by doing nothing more than filing an affidavit of probable cause.