[Husker] Alfonzo Dennard Found Guilty

[John Papenhagen]

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Reichenbach <reich at inetnebr.com>
To: papenhagen2 <papenhagen2 at aol.com>; quesohusker <quesohusker at gmail.com>
Cc: husker <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 23, 2013 12:12 pm
Subject: Re: [Husker] Alfonzo Dennard Found Guilty


> Innocent is a moral assessment.  Not-guilty is a legal assessment. 

Is that all?  Isn't the presumption of innocence a legal precept?
A trial outcome is either guilty or not guilty, so the judge or
jury doesn't assess innocence directly, but isn't there still a
presumption of innocence unless there is a guilty verdict?
=====================================


Again, I am giving out my opinion without having a legal background so I may be slightly off here.  With these assessments
come fine lines.  A presumption of innocence is really different than an innocent verdict.  In layman's terms a "not guilty"
verdict basically means there isn't enough evidence to convict.  Now the reason there may not be enough evidence is because
the defendant indeed did not perpetrate the crime.  But it also may mean the likelihood is there the crime was committed but it
was lacking in evidence, the prosecution didn't present it well, and a host of other things so a "not guilty" verdict would be
rendered.  The presumption of innocence really isn't someone believing someone they know is guilty is innocent.  It is just 
that the jury needs to keep in mind they need sufficient evidence and proof to render a "guilty" verdict.


JP