Understanding the legal system can be daunting, especially when faced with the confusing jargon that often accompanies criminal proceedings. Terms like "acquitted" and "not guilty" are frequently used, but their meanings and implications can be misunderstood. Although they both lead to the defendant walking free, they are not synonymous. 

This article will clarify the differences between acquitted and receiving a not-guilty verdict, delving into the nuances that set them apart. Understanding these distinctions can be critical for anyone involved in the legal system, including the defendant, attorney, and juror.

What's the Definition of Acquitted and Not Guilty?

In the legal context, "acquitted" and "not guilty" signify that the defendant is free from criminal liability, but they have different connotations and processes.

Acquitted
When a defendant is acquitted, the judge or jury has found them not guilty of the charges brought against them. This decision is made after evaluating all the evidence and concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An acquittal can occur at various trial stages, including a directed verdict by the judge before the jury deliberates.

Not Guilty
A not-guilty verdict is a specific outcome where the jury states that the prosecution has not met its burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This verdict is rendered after the trial concludes and the jury has deliberated on the presented evidence. 

Consequently, the defendant is legally absolved of the charges and cannot be punished for the alleged crime. While both outcomes lead to the defendant being released from the charges, the paths and implications can differ significantly.

Acquittal vs. Not Guilty: Understanding the Differences

Innocence
One common misconception is that acquittal or a not-guilty verdict equates to a declaration of the defendant's innocence. However, neither verdict confirms innocence; they merely indicate that the prosecution failed to meet the high burden of proof required for a conviction. Therefore, while a defendant may be acquitted or found not guilty, it does not necessarily mean they did not commit the alleged crime.

Double Jeopardy Protections
Both acquittal and not-guilty verdicts invoke the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This constitutional safeguard prevents a defendant from being tried again for the same offense after being acquitted or found not guilty. However, it is essential to note that this protection applies only to the same jurisdiction. For instance, a defendant acquitted in state court could face charges for the same act in federal court and vice versa.

Case Dismissals and Dropped Charges
An acquittal or not-guilty verdict differs from a case dismissal or charges being dropped. A dismissal occurs when the judge ends the case before it reaches trial due to insufficient evidence or procedural errors. The prosecution can drop charges if it believes it cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike an acquittal, which comes after a trial has begun, dismissals and dropped charges occur beforehand.

Subsequent Civil Cases
An important distinction is that the defendant may still face civil litigation even after an acquittal or not-guilty verdict. For example, in the famous O.J. Simpson case, Simpson was acquitted of murder in criminal court but was later found liable for wrongful death in a civil suit. The standards of proof in civil cases (preponderance of the evidence) are lower than in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt), allowing for different outcomes.

What Is a Partial Acquittal?

A partial acquittal occurs when a defendant faces multiple charges and is acquitted of some but found guilty of others. For instance, a defendant charged with both drug possession and distribution might be acquitted of distribution but convicted of possession. Partial acquittals demonstrate the nuanced nature of legal proceedings, where the evidence may support some charges but not others.

When Can You Request a Judgment of Acquittal in California?

In California, a defendant can request a judgment of acquittal during the trial, typically after the prosecution has presented its case. This request, known as a "motion for judgment of acquittal" or "motion for a directed verdict," argues that the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the judge agrees, they can acquit the defendant on the spot, ending the trial without requiring a jury verdict.

What Are the Other Types of Pleas in Court?

Beyond pleading not guilty or guilty, defendants have other plea options, including:

No Contest (Nolo Contendere)
A plea of no contest, also recognized as nolo contendere, means the defendant does not challenge the charges against them. This plea results in a conviction and sentencing similar to a guilty plea, but it has a crucial distinction: it cannot be used as an admission of guilt in any subsequent civil litigation. Defendants often choose this plea to avoid the civil liability that could arise from admitting guilt in a criminal case, especially in cases involving accidents or personal injury claims.

Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
When a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, they acknowledge committing the act but assert that they were legally insane at the time. This plea argues that the defendant could not understand the nature or wrongness of their actions due to their mental state. If successful, this plea can lead to the defendant entering a mental health facility instead of serving time in a traditional correctional institution.

Guilty
Pleading guilty states that the defendant confesses to committing the crime, waiving their right to a trial. This plea often comes as part of a plea bargain, where the defendant accepts to plead guilty for lesser charges or a reduced sentence. By pleading guilty, the defendant may benefit from a more lenient punishment and the opportunity to resolve their case more quickly.
These plea options provide defendants with strategic choices based on the specifics of their case and potential consequences.

Bottom Line
Understanding the differences between acquitting and receiving a not-guilty verdict is crucial for anyone navigating the criminal justice system. While both outcomes mean the defendant is acquitted, the nuances between them, including their implications for double jeopardy protections, civil liability, and the nature of the legal process, are significant. By grasping these distinctions, defendants and their legal teams can better strategize and advocate for them including their Miranda rights when faced with criminal charges.