Acquittal Meaning

Understanding the Meaning of Acquittal

An acquittal is when a defendant is found not guilty of the crime they were charged with. It means that the prosecution failed to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant committed the crime. An acquittal absolves the defendant of any further criminal liability for that charge.

The Legal Standard for Acquittal

In the American legal system, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. The standard that must be met is “beyond a reasonable doubt” – meaning the jury must have virtually no doubts that the defendant is guilty in order to convict. If there is any reasonable doubt, the jury is supposed to acquit.
This standard sets a high bar for conviction and favors defendants. As Supreme Court Justice Byron White explained, “a society that values the good name and freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when there is reasonable doubt about his guilt.”

When Acquittals Happen

There are a few common ways a defendant can get acquitted:

1. Lack of Evidence

If the prosecution doesn’t present enough compelling evidence, the jury may have too much doubt to convict. The evidence might be weak, contradictory, or rely too heavily on speculation. Without solid proof, an acquittal can result.

2. Self-Defense

When a violent crime occurs but the defendant argues they acted in self-defense, they can be acquitted if the jury believes their use of force was reasonable and necessary to prevent harm. The details of the situation matter – did the defendant have a reasonable fear of death/injury? Could they have safely retreated? What level of force did they use in response? If self-defense standards are met, it’s not considered a crime.

3. Insanity Defense

If a defendant is mentally ill and was unable to understand their actions or tell right from wrong at the time of the crime, they may raise an insanity defense. If successful, this leads to acquittal because the person isn’t seen as criminally responsible. Afterward, they will likely be committed to a psychiatric facility for treatment.

4. Entrapment

When undercover agents or informants convince someone to commit a crime they wouldn’t have otherwise, it’s called entrapment. Since the intent didn’t originate with the defendant, they can be acquitted on the basis that the government entrapped them.

5. Misidentification

Eyewitness misidentification is a common contributor to wrongful convictions. If the defense can show the witness made a mistake and has the wrong person, it creates enough doubt for acquittal.

What Happens After an Acquittal?

An acquittal cannot be appealed or overturned; it’s final. The Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause prevents the defendant from ever being tried again for that crime. Once acquitted, no matter how strong the evidence, the issue is settled for good.
After an acquittal, the defendant walks free with no restrictions, fines, probation requirements or other penalties. An acquittal is the legal equivalent of being found completely innocent – the slate is wiped clean.

No Further Prosecution for That Charge

Say Jim is on trial for robbing a gas station on March 15th. If the jury acquits him of that robbery, Jim cannot ever be charged again for that same March 15th robbery. The prosecution gets one chance to convict, and an acquittal permanently prevents trying again.
However, if evidence later surfaces about Jim robbing a different gas station on April 2nd, he could face new charges for that separate crime. An acquittal only prevents subsequent prosecution of that specific instance.

No Civil Liability Either

In addition to criminal cases, people can also bring civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages. But if someone is criminally acquitted, that typically prevents any related civil action against them as well. Under the legal principle of collateral estoppel, the acquittal settles the issue of liability.
So in our example, if the gas station owner sued Jim for damages related to the alleged March 15th robbery, that lawsuit would be barred because his acquittal already decided the matter.

Does an Acquittal Mean the Defendant is Innocent?

Legally, yes – an acquittal establishes innocence in the eyes of the law. The presumption of innocence stays intact, and the defendant walks free with no penalties or restrictions.
However, some people conflate “not guilty” with “innocent.” In reality, acquittals don’t always mean factual innocence. The prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond any doubt is extremely high, so defendants can be acquitted despite significant evidence against them.
An acquittal just means the evidence wasn’t strong enough to overcome all reasonable doubt and meet the legal standard. It’s about the proof, not necessarily the facts. The truth of what happened is separate from the procedural question of whether guilt was firmly established in court.
So while acquittals establish legal innocence, allowing the accused to move on with no further legal jeopardy, they don’t always prove complete factual innocence regarding whether the defendant actually committed the alleged acts. The prosecution might simply have failed to meet their evidentiary burden – even if jurors believe there’s a strong likelihood of guilt.

Famous Acquittals Where Guilt is Still Debated

Many high-profile acquittals remain controversial where public opinion diverges from the legal outcome. A few examples:

• OJ Simpson – Acquitted of double murder despite strong DNA evidence linking him to the crime scene. Many believe he got away with murder even if the prosecution didn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Casey Anthony – Acquitted of murdering her toddler daughter. The prosecution sought the death penalty but due to reliance on contested forensic evidence, the jury said the state didn’t firmly establish guilt.
• Robert Durst – The real estate heir admitted to dismembering his neighbor’s corpse and was acquitted on grounds of self-defense. He later made damning confessions but avoided further conviction due to double jeopardy rules.

In cases like these with an alleged miscarriage of justice, the public may rightly condemn the acquitted person’s actions regardless of the trial outcome. So while acquittals confer legal innocence, public perception often diverges significantly.

The Role of Jury Nullification

Jury nullification is when jurors return an acquittal verdict despite believing the defendant actually committed the crime. This can happen when the jury basically disagrees with the underlying law itself and therefore votes “not guilty” despite strong evidence.
Nullification verdicts are controversial but legally permissible. The jury has wide latitude to weigh the facts as they see fit. Defense lawyers sometimes explicitly appeal to a nullification strategy, asking jurors to acquit due to disagreement with the law rather than lack of convincing evidence.
Famous nullification examples are northern juries acquitting abolitionists who helped escaping slaves despite clear legal guilt under the Fugitive Slave Act. More recently, some marijuana possession cases have ended in nullification-based acquittals as societal attitudes toward drug laws evolve.
So in rare cases, an acquittal may result from nullification even when actual innocence isn’t in question. Here, the jury votes based on opposition to the law itself rather than evidentiary shortcomings.

What Does an Acquittal Say About the Justice System?

High-profile acquittals often fuel debate around justice reform and the fallibility of our legal system. However, before jumping to conclusions, it’s important to note why our system tilts toward acquittals when doubts exist.
The cornerstone of American justice is the presumption of innocence and the state’s burden to firmly overcome reasonable doubts. This skews the system to favor letting the guilty occasionally go free rather than risk convicting the innocent. As Supreme Court Judge William Douglas explained:
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.”

So while controversial acquittals rightfully provoke calls for reform, they also affirm the commitment to guarding due process and avoiding wrongful convictions whenever possible. An unpopular acquittal, while difficult to accept, ultimately upholds bedrock principles around reasonable doubt and innocence until proven guilty.