Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Dem & Media Hypocrisy Regarding Biden's Preemptive Pardons
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:36:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <vmrocl$17d4o$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vmprqu$okas$1@dont-email.me> <vmr3u5$12k4o$2@dont-email.me> <vmriei$162i9$1@dont-email.me> <vmriog$163ed$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 22:36:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b05a136fa32e341964e3264eefa44c24";
	logging-data="1291416"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uPmFAMfchecE/oW3qqSAO"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NdIJFNDTZsXfPJYUjcibyRmdBnM=
Bytes: 2636

On Jan 22, 2025 at 12:00:16 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> Jan 22, 2025 at 7:47:17 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 
>>> . . . 
> 
>>> I'm more critical of my own party than you are when they get things
>>> wrong. Legally, those clips demonstrated a misrepresentation of the
>>> difference between "guilty" -- the verdict upon finding (by jury or judge)
>>> of proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- and actual innocence, that is, a
>>> suspect or defendant who didn't actually commit the crimes he's accused
>>> of. No jury (except in movies) is asked to find actual innocence 'cuz,
>>> you know, they have no ability to investigate. Actual innocence isn't
>>> legal semantics that the criminal code simply doesn't perfectly apply to
>>> the proveable facts, but that the accused wasn't party to the crime.
> 
>> There is, however, a motion one can bring before a judge for a finding of
>> actual innocence.
> 
> I know nothing about this. This csnnot be done at trial, right? This is
> a post-conviction motion?

Typically used by a defendant post-acquittal to expunge all records of arrest
and prosecution. It essentially is a judicial ruling that says, "Not did the
state fail to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but no reasonable person
could rationally believe that the defendant committed the crime."

It's also a motion often brought by the wrongfully incarcerated who are later
exonerated by DNA or other new evidence that shows they couldn't have
committed the crime.