In law , a conviction is the determination by a court of law that a defendant is guilty of a crime . A conviction may follow a guilty plea that is accepted by the court, a jury trial in which a verdict of guilty is delivered, or a trial by judge in which the defendant is found guilty.
22-597: The opposite of a conviction is an acquittal (that is, "not guilty"). In Scotland , there can also be a verdict of " not proven ", which is considered an acquittal. Sometimes, despite a defendant being found guilty, the court may order that the defendant not be convicted. This is known as a discharge and is used in countries including England, Wales, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In any criminal justice system, innocent people are sometimes convicted. Appeal mechanisms and post conviction relief procedures may help to address this issue to some extent. An error leading to
44-422: A "tainted acquittal" to be set aside in circumstances where it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that an acquittal has been obtained by violence or threats of violence to a witness or juror/s. In modern England and Wales, and in all countries that substantially follow English criminal procedure, an acquittal normally results in the immediate liberation of the defendant from custody, assuming no other charges against
66-528: A state charge of felonious assault, as in the Rodney King case, can likewise be tried on federal civil rights charges. An acquittal does not mean the defendant is innocent of the charge presented—only that the prosecutor failed to prove that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . The charge may remain on the defendant's criminal record in the United States even after an acquittal, depending on
88-410: A subsequent trial. Even though the acquittal of the death penalty was erroneous in that case, the acquittal must stand. The only exception to an acquittal being final is if the defendant was never in actual jeopardy. If a defendant bribes a judge and obtains acquittal due to a bench trial, the acquittal is invalid because the defendant was never in jeopardy in the first place. Harry Aleman v. Judges of
110-537: A verdict of "not proven" does not give rise to the double jeopardy rule. In England and Wales, which share a common legal system, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 creates an exception to the double jeopardy rule , by providing that retrials may be ordered if "new and compelling evidence" comes to light after an acquittal for a serious crime. Also, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 permits
132-415: Is generally considered an acquittal, but there is a subtle difference between the two. A defendant found "not guilty" is not legally answerable for the criminal charge filed. An acquittal is when a judge or jury finds a defendant "not guilty" of the crime charged. "Not guilty" also refers to a type of plea in a criminal case. To avoid confusion, the term "acquittal" is often used in place of it to refer to
154-547: Is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness. Scots law has two acquittal verdicts: not guilty and not proven . However,
176-645: The Criminal Division, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, et al. , 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 1998). An acquittal, while conclusive as to the criminal law, does not necessarily bar private civil actions in tort or on some other grounds as a result of the facts alleged in the charge. For example, the City of Los Angeles was held liable in 1994 for the 1991 Rodney King beating despite state acquittals in 1992 of all of its four main LAPD defendants, and in 1997 O. J. Simpson
198-430: The charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings
220-497: The conviction of an innocent person is known as a miscarriage of justice . In some judicial systems, the prosecution may appeal acquittals; while in others, this is prohibited under double jeopardy protections. After a defendant is convicted, the court determines the appropriate sentence as a punishment . In addition to the sentence, a conviction can also have other consequences, known as collateral consequences of criminal charges . These can include impacts on employment, housing,
242-406: The court judgment. When multiple charges are filed against a defendant, and a judge or jury finds the defendant not guilty of some charges but guilty of others, the defendant is said to have received a "partial acquittal". The defendant will then be sentenced for the charges that did not result in acquittal. Fong Foo v. United States Fong Foo v. United States , 369 U.S. 141 (1962),
SECTION 10
#1732876918721264-467: The defendant remain to be tried. However, until 1774, a defendant acquitted by an English or Welsh court would be remanded to jail until he had paid the jailer for the costs of his confinement. It was known for acquitted persons to die in jail for lack of jailer's fees. With one exception, the prosecution in the United States cannot appeal an acquittal because of constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy . The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled: It
286-423: The judge decided that the circumstances of the case did not permit death to be imposed. On appeal, the judge's ruling was found to be erroneous. However, even though the decision to impose a life sentence instead of death was based on the judge's incorrect interpretation of the law, the finding of life imprisonment in the original case constituted an acquittal of the death penalty. Thus, death could not be imposed upon
308-649: The petition and held that the defendants could be retried, based on its opinion that the District Judge did not have the power to direct the judgment of the jury, in this case. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court. In its opinion, delivered per curiam , the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the grounds that its decision violated the Fifth Amendment . The Supreme Court focused on
330-466: The right to travel to other countries, and other areas of an individual's life. A person's history of convictions is known as their antecedents or "previous" in the United Kingdom and "priors" in the United States and Australia. Acquittal In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of
352-471: The same charge. In this case, the court ruled that despite the error of the District Judge , the 5th Amendment protected the defendants from facing a second trial for the same charge. The defendants (a corporation and two of its employees) were brought to trial under an indictment for conspiracy and other subsequent charges. The trial was in a Federal District Court that had jurisdiction over them and over
374-494: The section of the Amendment that reads "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". The Court explained that the trial had not terminated before the entry of a judgment, but with a final judgment acquitting the defendants. The Supreme Court recognized the error of the District Judge but ruled that the verdict was final and could not be reviewed without violating rights guaranteed by
396-504: The state regulations. A federal criminal record may include acquittals, case dismissals, and convictions. In the UK, police forces can reveal whether individuals have been acquitted of criminal charges when issuing information for enhanced record checks, according to a 2018 Supreme Court ruling. Depending on one's location, a background check may highlight not only convictions or plea bargains but also arrests, charges that were dropped or dismissed, and acquittals. A "not guilty" finding
418-558: The subject matter. The District Judge, after hearing part, but not all, of the government's evidence, ordered the jury to acquit the defendants, which the jury did. The judge's action was based on supposed improper conduct of the United States District Attorney and the supposed lack of credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. The government filed for a writ of mandamus to the Court of Appeals . The Court of Appeals granted
440-543: Was a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the protection from double jeopardy by the federal government . While the protection from double jeopardy did not get incorporated to apply to the state governments until 1969 (see Benton v. Maryland ), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevented the Federal Government from bringing a defendant to trial twice for
462-511: Was decided in Fong Foo v. United States , 369 U.S. 141 (1962) that the prosecution cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal by a jury. In United States v. Jenkins , 420 U.S. 358 (1975), this was held applicable to bench trials . In Arizona v. Rumsey , 467 U.S. 203 (1984), it was ruled that in a bench trial, when a judge was holding a separate hearing after the jury trial, to decide if the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment ,
SECTION 20
#1732876918721484-399: Was held civilly liable for wrongful death even after being tried and acquitted in 1995 of murder . An acquittal also does not bar prosecution for the same offenses under a statute of a different jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, someone acquitted of a state murder charge can be retried for the same actions on a federal charge of violating civil rights , and police acquitted of
#720279