« I think it`s very difficult with that because it`s only one-on-one, there are no other witnesses. And I mean, it`s a little bit. It`s quite difficult to say who is innocent or not, I find it difficult. One minute we look, I was with him, and the next minute I was with her, and I find that difficult. I would say not proven because I`m not sure. The unproven verdict was enshrined in Scottish law in 1728 (since then jurors have been able to proceed with an acquittal), but scholars dispute its origins. Scottish law is based on the idea that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the onus is on the Crown to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is some disagreement among historians as to why this change took place. David Hume and Hugo Arnot argue that it was rooted in religious oppression. The Crown persecuted the Covenanters, but popular support made it impossible for them to be convicted in a jury trial. In order to strengthen the power of the jury, Scottish judges began to limit the role of the jury: the jury no longer announced whether the accused was « guilty » or « not guilty »; Instead, it would decide whether certain factual allegations are « proven » or « unproven »; And the judge would then decide whether to convict or not. Unproven: An « unproven » verdict is not defined in law or case law, and the standard text on Scottish criminal procedure states that jurors should not be informed of its importance. There were only five examples of juries explicitly explaining during the deliberations why they alternated between the two acquittals.
Again, their statements reflected the jury`s reasons discussed above as to why they had not been proven or not guilty – for example, the defendant`s conviction in innocence (as a reason for moving from unproven to not guilty) or the difficulties in choosing between the defendant`s and complainant`s accounts (as a reason for changing in the opposite direction). You probably know the guilty and not guilty verdicts, but have you heard of « not proven »? Scottish jury trials have unique features such as a 15-member jury, simple majority decisions and the « unproven » verdict. Here we look at what judgments mean and how they differ. Not proven is sometimes interpreted to mean that the jury or judge is not satisfied of the innocence of the accused; In fact, they may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but find the evidence insufficient to convict. One reason for this is the rule that, in such cases, the evidence against him must be corroborated in order to permit a conviction. Thus, there could be only one complainant or prosecution witness whom the jury or judge believes to be true and trustworthy, but no other witnesses or circumstances against the accused. Under Scottish law, the accused should then be acquitted, but is often not proved by the verdict. [2] In Scotland, there is much controversy and debate about the availability of an unproven judgment.
Research shows that juries can consider « unproven » as common ground between guilty and not guilty. In Scotland, there have been attempts to abolish what Sir Walter Scott called this bastard judgment. In 1827, Scott, who was sheriff of Selkirk Court, wrote in his diary that « the jury did not prove this bastard verdict. [9] 69 of the 431 jurors (16%) who rendered three verdicts in juries alternated between the two acquittals during deliberations. [111] This change was the most common, from not guilty to not proven (12% of juries with three verdicts changed in this direction, with 4% moving from not proven to not guilty). The reason for moving to two sentences would not be a deliberate attempt by the government to increase convictions in these cases. Indeed, in a two-verdict system, one would logically expect most unproven verdicts to become not guilty, although, as noted earlier, jury research suggests that there may be circumstances in which reversing the unproven verdict could cause jurors to tilt more toward a guilty verdict. especially in finely balanced trials. Although caution is advised when generalizing results to real jurors.
Some jurors who participated in mock trials set up to examine jurors` understanding of the term « unproven » assumed that an unproven verdict was in the accused`s records. They are therefore always punished without a guilty verdict. This is completely false. In fact, the legal situation regarding the resumption of trial after an acquittal is now somewhat more complex than this directive suggests. Since the entry into force of the Dual Criminality (Scotland) Act 2011, the Crown may apply for leave to reopen proceedings after an acquittal, but only in certain circumstances (in particular if the acquitted person has subsequently admitted to having committed the offence or, in serious cases, if there is new evidence that significantly strengthens the charges against him). [99] Analysis of the deliberations revealed that a small number of jurors in this study were aware of these provisions. It is important to note, however, that such a request for a retrial may be made regardless of whether the verdict is not guilty or not proven. There is therefore no difference between the two acquittals as regards the possibility of a new trial.
If you don`t understand the importance of the charges against you, what « guilty » and « not guilty » means, or if you can`t hire a lawyer to represent you, the court may gather medical evidence to find out if you are unable to plead. A final related theme, again the most important in the rape trial, was that the jury justified its decision not to be proven by saying that it personally believed the accused was guilty, but that it was not sure beyond doubt. For example: In the early 17th century, it was common for jurors in Scotland to make a finding of « fylet, guilty and condemned » or « clene, innocent and acquitted ». [10] This changed at the end of the 17th century. In the nineteenth century, the role of the jury was simply « to explain whether the facts alleged were proved or not », with the judge having to decide on the basis of this explanation whether the accused was guilty or not. [11] The government believes that it is inappropriate for us to continue to have a judgment that those directly affected by the process do not understand or find unnecessary. traumatic, and it is not appropriate for those acquitted by a Scottish court to be stigmatised. For these reasons, we have recognized that a strong argument can be made in favour of abolishing unproven judgment, and it is right to revisit the issue in the current context set out in this paper. The result is the modern perception that the « unproven » verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the innocence of the accused to render an « not guilty » verdict.
Essentially, the judge or jury is not satisfied that the suspect is innocent, but does not have sufficient evidence to the contrary. Technically (but not in public perception) there is no difference between « not proven » and « not guilty » and both correspond to the « not guilty » judgment of English and other jurisdictions. In the vernacular, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as « not guilty and don`t do it again. » [1] These two sentences have the same effect, since they are both acquittals. There are no legal consequences for the accused if he receives an unproven verdict.
