This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
'Sometimes, an acquittal can be made if there is no proof or evidence to incriminate the defendant. One such example is Michael Jackson and the 2005 trial.' - surely the 'sometimes' is wrong? If there is no proof or evidence, shouldn't the defendent always be acquitted?
Sometimes, an acquittal can be made if there is no proof or evidence to incriminate the defendant. One such example is the dangerous pedophiliac Michael Jackson and the 2005 trial.
I think this warrants discussion before re-inclusion. Apart from libellously assuming Mr. Jackson's guilt despite his acquittal, if there is no proof or evidence to incriminate a defendant, it's fairly obvious that this defendant is entitled to an acquittal; the real question is why is he on trial at all? Smerdis of Tlön June 30, 2005 20:34 (UTC)
I searched for "not guilty" hoping to read about the beatles song by that title. I was redirected here. Maybe something should be done so that "not guilty" has a disambiguation page which links to both the song and this article. Hugzz02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no one is opposed to it, I think I'll make the "not guilty" page a disambigation page linking to the beatles song and also to this article. Lemme know because I'll do it in the next few days if no one speaks up--Hugzz15:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I did it. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page if you have anything to say about it, since i'm still somewhat new to this --Hugzz09:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This only refers to the decision made; is there an article regarding the fact that "not guilty" can be entered as a plea, or should it be mentioned on this article? ProfessorTofty (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]