If I'm understanding what University of Michigan Law School has up in their glossary, yes.

Which pretty much ends the debate if we can get a lawyer or two to concur.

It wouldn't end the debate any more than it's already ended. Corpus would still argue they are guilty and therefore Trump still calling for them to be executed is not racist.

He's an actual bad faith poster.

I took him off ignore for one post and he's back on. He'd be better spending his time in a therapy group of some sort than in a political forum where there's clashing of opinions and egos. He really gets crazy with anyone who disagrees with him. This isn't a place where he'll find any peace.

lol

Well, yes.

I meant it would end the debate between the reasonable posters.

Mybad.

That is exactly correct and has been my only position in this thread and the prior.

Time and again CV and another poster would repeat 'they were not exonerated' and 'they were not found innocent'. A tactic used to suggest 'guilt' or an assumption of that still hangs over them until they do.

I DO NOT believe they were exonerated, as I do not think the term is applicable. I do not believe they have been found innocent (or better 'not guilty), as there is no mechanism for people not accused or charged to establish innocence (not guilty verdict).

These are the terms used by those who want to slander others.

You can just imagine if you had an anonymous way online of slandering a daycare worker by saying 'you were not found innocent or exonerated of being a pedophile' despite them not being accused or charged. Parents would still doubt and pull their kids out if you they kept reading it.

It would be a dishonest way to cast a shadow of guilt over someone who has no mechanism to go get a 'not guilty' verdict or an exoneration, again because they are not charged.

Charges being vacated do not invoke double jeopardy. The State can bring charges again immediately if they wish.

But otherwise, like any citizen these people enjoy the presumption of innocence, until accused, prosecuted and convicted.

Yeah I get it. A little hard for me to imagine many reasonable posters caring about that technical point other than as a passing curiosity unrelated to the actual case.

I cared.
But then I make no claim of being reasonable either.......

Yes, i too have learned something with regards to how the law perceives what constitutes 'exoneration'.

I still do not think that is a true or proper use of the word in cases like this, where the 'exoneration' is more due to the 'officials' abuse. It is my view (and my opinion only) that such 'official mishandling' vacated cases do not meet the definition of exoneration (but i admit the definition is more broad than I would agree with).

For instance I believe we have seen cases where career officials (Coroners, Detectives, etc) have been found to have been faking evidence to secure convictions. ONce outed, any cases they worked on, find their convictions vacated as it is impossible to trust the underlying evidence that was used to gain the convictions.

The charges and convictions being vacated is just that. Full stop.

They do not need to be exonerated or found 'innocent' and in fact cannot be, as there is no mechanism to do so. But the State can recharge anyone and prosecute properly if they so choose and do think the parties are guilty. But if they do not, then all enjoy the presumption of innocence as any other citizen does.

So, Cupee's entire argument is that he is upset that CV infers guilt when he says they were not exonerated?

Its a pretty strong argument

My argument is I literally said EVERY SINGLE TIME it was brought up I said:

- 'no they were not exonerated'


And CV keeps saying 'you argued they were exonerated'.

He cannot quote a single time I say or even suggest exoneration as I did not believe they were.

Imagine trying to participate in a debate over whether you are for or against Gay Rights.

YOu say you are pro gay rights, but the other poster keeps stating time and again said you were against gay rights. They keep, purposely lying and misrepresenting what you say, as an attempt to smear you.

You then have to let the lie just sit, as if true, or keep addressing it time and time and time again only to have them repeat it again.

Well, doesn't CV think they are guilty?

I have never spoken to the idea of whether anyone thinks they are guilty or not.

I have NOT participated in those discussions, one iota.

My entire participation in the thread was addressing the claim by CV and another poster that :

- they were NOT exonerated
- they were not found innocent


I replied that the premise of both those statements and the use of both those statements is disingenuous and wrong as people not charged or accused have no mechanism to 'get exonerated' or to be found 'not guilty' (innocent), and as such to keep repeating 'but they were not exonerated and were not found innocent' was an attempt to impugn guilt improperly.

Impute, bro.

OJ simpson was not exonerated becasue there is a mountain of evidence against him, despite the jury reaching a not-guilty verdict. You are damn right I'm inferring guilt.

I think having a conviction vacated because of new evidence is a much higher bar to clear than a not guilty jury verdict at trial. I doubt anyone would refer to OJ's case as an exoneration, but I could be wrong.

41 million says you're right !!

Also, OJ was not exonerated where as the CP5 actually (legally) were.

How would you summarize the "mountain of evidence" against the CP5?

The argument ITT appears to be that vacated != acquitted, but acquittals are also not an exoneration, they are just statements that the legal standards of proof were not met. If anything, it is much harder to get a conviction vacated than to be acquitted at trial. As others point out, he is asking for some formal declaration of innocence which I don't think exists in the legal system.

I think you might be missing some context from the last time we opened up this can of worms:

CV isn't ranting about "exoneration" because of legal standards of guilt. He thinks they're still guilty.

I posted above.

Vacated = charges have been set aside.
Vacated + DA dismissing the indictment = exoneration.

Need an opinion from forum counsel but that's where it's at in my mind until I'm corrected.

NOted. Thx!

I have no issue with anyone believing anything they want. I may see their OPINION as crazy but, so what. If you want to believe Donald Trump was, in fact, the man who shot JFK knock yourself out.


That is a very different thing than saying Donald Trump was not 'exonerated' or was not ever proven 'innocent' with regards to killing JFK.

If someone kept repeating the latter it would be a disingenuous way to attempt to smear Trump since he is not accused nor being prosecuted for that crime, thus has no mechanism to establish exoneration or innocence (not guilty verdict).


You would literally be accusing him of NOT doing something he has no means of doing nor any reason to do, since he is not being accused or charged.

The repeating over and over 'he was not exonerated', 'he was not found innocent' is simply an attempt to smear or impute ;} them.

Heh... "impugn them" or "impute guilt to them"

They are back to pretrial status and a vacated conviction is nothing even remotely similar to an exoneration.

I never said they had to prove their innocence and please do not put words in my mouth thanks. I agree with the trial verdict, the fact that it was vacated on a technicality is neither here nor there. Mario Casciaro had his conviction vacated and has a legal "presumption" of innocence, yet this is what the prosecution said after his conviction was vacated:
https://digitaledition.chicagotribun...5-8196c0d697c0

Yet he's claimed as "exonerated" by the national registry of exonerations which is untrue.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...px?caseid=4868

Kelly Michaels had her conviction vacated and prosecution didn't retry as they wished to spare the child abuse victims from testifying again.
Furthermore Stop trying to blame me for another posters false claims by attempting to put words in my mouth. I notice you let the bad faith posting false racism accusation and general trolling slide btw. But god forbid someone should react in an uncivil manner?Moderate fairly and properly please and stop being so partisan. He made a false claim passed off as fact refused to support his false claim via the court sources and then tried to derail things by falsely accusing me of being a racist, which you seem to have zero problem with.

A vacated conviction in no way equates to an exoneration and it's flat out dishonest to claim otherwise. So again stop blaming me for other posters false claims and bad faith posting and again moderate properly and fairly please.