Perhaps we need a refresher on INNOCENT vs NOT GUILTY...

[dutch508]

Star Member brooklynite (77,908 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216625924

Perhaps we need a refresher on INNOCENT vs NOT GUILTY...

A number of posts have expressed irritation that some people (myself included) have said Marjorie Taylor Greene deserved to remain on the ballot in November, following her Administrative Hearing on Friday.

While this was a Hearing rather than a Trial and civil rather than criminal, the concept remains the same: MTG deserves to remain on the ballot NOT because she's "innocent" but because she's been found, for now, "not guilty". Judges and Juries don't determine innocence. They PRESUME innocence and place the burden on the Prosecutor or Plaintiff lawyer to prove otherwise. On this case, the Plaintiff attorney had the burden of proving "guilt" (engagement in, support for, planning for insurrection etc.) sufficient to invoke Amendment 14 Article 3. He failed to do so. His argument was: MTG had a history on incendiary language (true, but unlinked by evidence to the statements made on Jan 6); she supported "insurrection" against the British in 1776 so she must be inclined to support it in 2020 (alleged but not proven); and she used "code words" that insurrectionists so she must have had a relationship with them (possible, but again not proven). As a result, she's considered "not guilty" of the charge against her, based on the evidence presented.

nb: unlike criminal law, there isn't a double-jeopardy provision at play here. If the Plaintiff attorney or someone else can FIND evidence, they can bring in back to Court.

This DUmmie isn't going to make it to the elections...

Star Member hlthe2b (91,109 posts)

1. NO rendering either way has occurred. The admin judge has asked parties for follow-up

So, any conclusion as to the judge's opinion is premature. Generalized platitudes about "innocent until proven guilty" that is the hallmark of our entire judicial system aside, there has been no decision rendered. Even when it is rendered, this is not a clear-cut (binding) case and certainly not a criminal case. Thus, the SOS will have the final word in GA, not this administrative judge. His opinion is merely informative.

Judge Charles R. Beaudrot Jr. said at the end of the proceedings on Friday that he will give the parties until next Thursday at midnight to file their follow-up briefings on certain matters the judge wanted more input on. He said though that he hopes they will file them sooner.

"We do need to get this done," he said. "Georgia courts move very fast, we will move very fast.. this is extraordinarily important stuff."

The judge said once the briefings are filed, he would aim to have his findings completed within a week.

moniss (368 posts)

2. I've always said

that the term "not guilty" is inappropriate. It should be "not proven".

stopdiggin (6,554 posts)

3. Yep. the fact that I don't WANT her in congress

is not the equivalent of finding reason she should be barred from the ballot.

(And yes, - also aware that a lot of people are utterly convinced the the 'evidence' here is straightforward and clear as a bell. That is one set of opinion - the judge seems to have arrived at another. And I think it pretty hard to assert that a jury - had there been one in this matter - would have come to anything like unanimous agreement to the contrary.)

Star Member Hoyt (53,843 posts)

4. Oh, hell, we all know she's guilty of something and should be removed from ballot,

since we can’t win in that district nowadays.

Star Member dpibel (1,822 posts)

5. Another swing, another miss

Just for starters, you're not the finder of fact. You can (and certainly do) opine to your heart's content as to the weight and quality of the evidence.

What you can't do is say what has or has not been proven. That's the province of the finder of fact. Your stating it as a certainty is fatuous.

You're probably right. The AL judge likely will find in Greene's favor. But you really are out of line to claim you know for a fact what the outcome will be.

As for your trenchant analysis, "she supported "insurrection" against the British in 1776 so she must be inclined to support it in 2020 (alleged but not proven)" is one of the silliest things I've ever read. Even from you.

The point of the 1776 argument is that when she said "This is our 1776," she was communicating that her people had come to the same point as the people in 1776.

I mean really. That's clear to anyone, and your formulation of it is...what's the word?...oh, yes. Fatuous.

And you haven't at all discussed the standard of proof. According to the plaintiff's brief, it's preponderance of the evidence. That's a world different from BRD and also, I'm thinking, far from "evidence sufficient for Brooklynite." It could figure in.

Frankly, I agree with you. This complaint is unlikely to prevail.

But I don't agree that it's anywhere close to as frivolous as you like to present it.

And I don't actually hold your legal analysis in quite the esteem you seem to.

Especially since I'm pretty sure you haven't read the complaint and, thus, are holding forth without even a basic knowledge of the legal theories at issue.

 

ForgedCrank (622 posts)

6. It's the same thing. All people are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. If a not guilty verdict is rendered, the person in question is back to being presumed innocent, are they not?

Lucid Dreamer (454 posts)

7. Yes, there remains the presumption of innocence with a Not Guilty verdict, but factual innocence may not be true.

People that have actually committed crimes have been acquitted.
In that case that person would be factually Not Innocent [not a legal term] yet be Not Guilty [a legal term].

 

[SVPete]

brooklynite's post has good points, but culinarily speaking it's a stew rather than a composed dish. In a more organized (I think, at least) form: MTG cannot be 14th Amendmented because:

* MTG has not been found guilty of insurrection in criminal court, because ...

* ... No prosecutor has presented evidence in criminal court that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she participated in an insurrection ...

* ... Because such evidence does not exist ...

* ... And therefore no indictment, because the DOJ, so far, does not want their asses handed to them in court. Come late summer or early fall, the DOJ might get stupid, but time would work against them.

Dems are trying to bypass due process and "democracy" for two reasons: they do not trust voters in MTG's district; they do not trust an impartial jury.