Originally Posted by
FBinNY
There's a difference between being innocent in any real sense, and the inability of the Sheriff or DA to prove your guilt to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of criminal law. In short, absence of strong, nearly conclusive proof of guilt works to benefit of the defendant.
The state often declines to prosecute based on that high bar. OTOH, the civil process has a lower bar, and many cases considered accidents for criminal law purposes, result in an assignment of responsibility and jury award in civil court.
I am a local prosecutor and your points are right on target.
If a jury fails to convict an accused, it does not mean that the accused is factually innocent. It just means that the prosecutor failed to prove the accused's guilt BRD--the accused may be guilty, the prosecutor just failed to prove the People's case.
This is also the reason why the correct legal terms IS
"presumed innocent until proven guilty" and NOT
"innocent until proven guilty."