History Main / NotProven

11th Jan '17 7:14:26 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The LordPeterWimsey novel ''Have His Carcase'' ends with Peter and Harriet knowing who committed the murder, how it was done, and that it would be stunningly difficult to prove it. Harriet, however, points out that the reason for the murder was about to arise again, so they do decide to go to court over it..

to:

* The LordPeterWimsey Literature/LordPeterWimsey novel ''Have His Carcase'' ends with Peter and Harriet knowing who committed the murder, how it was done, and that it would be stunningly difficult to prove it. Harriet, however, points out that the reason for the murder was about to arise again, so they do decide to go to court over it..
7th Jan '17 10:05:24 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message






* In the second ''LauraBow'' game, even if the player has figured it out already, the murderer will get off scot-free if you haven't collected enough evidence to prove it. In the ''first'' game, the murderer [[spoiler:ends up dead]] regardless of what you do, collect, or figure out.

to:

\n* In the second ''LauraBow'' ''VideoGame/LauraBow'' game, even if the player has figured it out already, the murderer will get off scot-free if you haven't collected enough evidence to prove it. In the ''first'' game, the murderer [[spoiler:ends up dead]] regardless of what you do, collect, or figure out.
out.



30th Nov '16 1:21:33 PM Gosicrystal
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Most ''Franchise/AceAttorney'' cases seem like they'll end like this, until Phoenix/Apollo/Miles puts everything together at the last second. There are a few exceptions:

to:


[[/folder]]

[[folder: Visual Novels ]]

* Most ''Franchise/AceAttorney'' cases seem like they'll end like this, until Phoenix/Apollo/Miles Phoenix/Apollo/Miles/Mia puts everything together at the last second. There are a few exceptions:



** The final case of ''VisualNovel/ApolloJusticeAceAttorney'' revolves around this: the murderer has covered his tracks well enough to leave no direct evidence linking himself to the crime, but all the other facts at hand point quite definitively at him. The problem is, the existing court system in place in the series' universe requires either evidence, a confession, or incredibly strong testimony...which is why Phoenix has spent the past seven years [[TakeAThirdOption working towards the re-establishment of a jury system.]]
** The third case of ''Apollo Justice'' also ventures over here. [[spoiler:Apollo knows who to accuse but his case hits a wall when he lacks anything concrete enough to get the guilty party to admit to their guilt. The only way he can slam the book on the actual culprit is by having the defendant admit to his own culpability in a different but related crime. The other crime carries a harsh sentence in his homeland but not in Apollo's country, which makes it advantageous to him to confess now instead of being found guilty at a later time. In doing so, the murderer would be revealed as the two were co-conspirators on the latter crime.]] After threatening to blow the lid on the whole affair, the real guilty party loses it and breaks down.

to:

** The final case of ''VisualNovel/ApolloJusticeAceAttorney'' revolves around this: ''VisualNovel/ApolloJusticeAceAttorney'':
*** In
the murderer has covered his tracks well enough to leave no direct evidence linking himself to the crime, but all the other facts at hand point quite definitively at him. The problem is, the existing court system in place in the series' universe requires either evidence, a confession, or incredibly strong testimony...which is why Phoenix has spent the past seven years [[TakeAThirdOption working towards the re-establishment of a jury system.]]
** The
third case of ''Apollo Justice'' also ventures over here. case, [[spoiler:Apollo knows who to accuse but his case hits a wall when he lacks anything concrete enough to get the guilty party to admit to their guilt. The only way he can slam the book on the actual culprit is by having the defendant admit to his own culpability in a different but related crime. The other crime carries a harsh sentence in his homeland but not in Apollo's country, which makes it advantageous to him to confess now instead of being found guilty at a later time. In doing so, the murderer would be revealed as the two were co-conspirators on the latter crime.]] After threatening to blow the lid on the whole affair, the real guilty party loses it and breaks down.down.
*** The final case revolves around this: the murderer has covered his tracks well enough to leave no direct evidence linking himself to the crime, but all the other facts at hand point quite definitively at him. The problem is, the existing court system in place in the series' universe requires either evidence, a confession, or incredibly strong testimony...which is why Phoenix has spent the past seven years [[TakeAThirdOption working towards the re-establishment of a jury system.]]



** One case of ''VisualNovel/DaiGyakutenSaiban'' involves this, but in a twist [[spoiler: it's your client who gets off on this... right as Ryunosuke (Phoenix's ancestor) starts thinking he may be guilty after all. Unfortunately, [[NiceJobBreakingItHero he's done such a good job defending his client that the judge and jury feel there isn't enough evicence to be certain of the defendant's guilt]], and the trial ends in a Not Guilty verdict. Turns out he ''is'' guilty after all... [[KarmaHoudiniWarranty but he's promptly murdered right after he walks free.]]]]

to:

** One case of ''VisualNovel/DaiGyakutenSaiban'' involves this, but in a twist [[spoiler: it's your client who gets off on this... right as Ryunosuke (Phoenix's ancestor) starts thinking he may be guilty after all. Unfortunately, [[NiceJobBreakingItHero he's done such a good job defending his client that the judge and jury feel there isn't enough evicence to be certain of the defendant's guilt]], and the trial ends in a Not Guilty verdict. Turns out he ''is'' guilty after all... [[KarmaHoudiniWarranty but he's promptly murdered right after he walks free.]]]]
free]]]].
4th Nov '16 11:21:15 AM Viira
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** One case of ''VisualNovel/DaiGyakutenSaiban'' involves this, but in a twist [[spoiler: it's your client who gets off on this... right as Ryunosuke (Phoenix's ancestor) starts thinking he may guilty after all. Unfortunately, [[NiceJobBreakingItHero he's done such a good job defending him that the judge and jury feel there isn't enough evicence to be certain of the defendant's guilt]], and the trial ends in a Not Guilty verdict. Turns out he ''is'' guilty after all... [[KarmaHoudiniWarranty but he's promptly murdered right after he walks free.]]]]

to:

** One case of ''VisualNovel/DaiGyakutenSaiban'' involves this, but in a twist [[spoiler: it's your client who gets off on this... right as Ryunosuke (Phoenix's ancestor) starts thinking he may be guilty after all. Unfortunately, [[NiceJobBreakingItHero he's done such a good job defending him his client that the judge and jury feel there isn't enough evicence to be certain of the defendant's guilt]], and the trial ends in a Not Guilty verdict. Turns out he ''is'' guilty after all... [[KarmaHoudiniWarranty but he's promptly murdered right after he walks free.]]]]
18th May '16 5:12:06 AM BigKlingy
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** One case of ''VisualNovel/DaiGyakutenSaiban'' involves this, but in a twist [[spoiler: it's your client who gets off on this... right as Ryunosuke (Phoenix's ancestor) starts thinking he may guilty after all. Unfortunately, [[NiceJobBreakingItHero he's done such a good job defending him that the judge and jury feel there isn't enough evicence to be certain of the defendant's guilt]], and the trial ends in a Not Guilty verdict. Turns out he ''is'' guilty after all... [[KarmaHoudiniWarranty but he's promptly murdered right after he walks free.]]]]
24th Apr '16 10:42:04 PM MsChibi
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

[[folder: Anime and Manga]]
* In ''Manga/DeathNote'', Kira directs Raye Penber's attention to an ordinary-looking man mopping the floor at a Starbucks-like coffee shop, explaining that this man has faced rape charges multiple times, but each time, he walked because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. Kira then kills the man via his usual HollywoodHeartAttack method right in front of Raye's eyes, to show him that he ''is'' Kira, and he won't hesitate to do likewise to Raye [[HostageSituation if he doesn't cooperate]].
[[/folder]]
3rd Jan '16 9:46:54 AM TotemicHero
Is there an issue? Send a Message


This entry is named after the third possible verdict in the Scottish legal system, which the legal system treats as "innocent" and [[ConvictedByPublicOpinion public opinion typically treats as "guilty"]].

to:

This entry is named after How this works out depends on where the third possible story is set. In a American-based story, if the main protagonists are law enforcement officials and the like, you can usually expect them to find some new piece of evidence or get a confession that allows them to proceed with the conviction. If the story is more focused on the culprits or is bleaker in outlook, the verdict will effectively be found innocent, leading to a clear-cut case of KarmaHoudini.

This trope takes on different meaning
in a large number of non-U.S. countries (including Scotland, whose courtroom laws serve as the Scottish legal system, which TropeNamer), where the legal system treats principle of double jeopardy isn't observed. This means that the criminal could ostensibly be brought to trial again at a later point, if new evidence was found. Thus, it isn't quite as "innocent" and [[ConvictedByPublicOpinion public opinion typically treats as "guilty"]].
dramatic in works set in those regions of the world.
3rd Jan '16 7:41:14 AM shimaspawn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[AC: ComicBooks]]

to:

[[AC: ComicBooks]][[foldercontrol]]

[[folder: Comic Books ]]



[[AC: FanFiction]]

to:

[[AC: FanFiction]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Fan Fiction ]]



[[AC: {{Literature}}]]

to:

[[AC: {{Literature}}]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Literature ]]



[[AC: LiveActionTV]]

to:

[[AC: LiveActionTV]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Live Action TV ]]



[[AC: VideoGames]]

to:

[[AC: VideoGames]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Video Games ]]



[[AC: WebComics]]

to:

[[AC: WebComics]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Web Comics ]]



[[AC: WesternAnimation]]

to:

[[AC: WesternAnimation]][[/folder]]

[[folder: Western Animation ]]



----

to:

----[[/folder]]

----
3rd Jan '16 7:40:44 AM shimaspawn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The investigators put the evidence together, find out who did it and then realise that the perp is going to get off scot-free because the evidence won't convict them. This typically involves something being excluded from the trial, so that the audience is in no doubt about the suspect's guilt.

to:

The investigators put the evidence together, find out who did it it, and then realise that the perp is going to get gets off scot-free because the evidence won't isn't enough to convict them. them in court. This typically involves something being excluded from the trial, or seeing the crime happen on screen so that the audience is in no doubt about the suspect's guilt.



Originally, the two verdicts open to a Scots jury were the standard "guilty" and "not guilty". However, in the 17th century, the Scottish Crown faced a rebellion by a small sect of Protestants, called [[TheFundamentalist the Covenanters]]. Such was the brutality of the Crown's crackdown, [[CrowningMomentOfAwesome Scottish juries refused to pass judgements of "guilty" upon Covenanters in protest.]] To combat this, Scottish judges [[RulesLawyer replaced the jury's role as pronouncers of guilt with that of finders-of-fact]] -- the jury was asked to rule on specific factual allegations against the accused, and rule only that they were "proven" and "not proven". This persisted until the 1728 case of ''Carnegie of Findhaven'', where Mr Carnegie was accused of killing the Earl of Strathmore. However, the circumstances persuaded the jury that it was an accident.[[note]]Which, under modern Scots law, it bloody well wasn't -- Carnegie was very drunk and ''had'' meant to murder another man who had pushed him into a ditch (where a combination of sucking mud and his own drunkenness would have killed him if not for the timely actions of the Earl and his servants). The Earl "stepping in to prevent any Mischief that might happen, received from Finhaven a mortal Wound, about an Inch below his Navel, which wounded his Puddings in three Parts, and went quite thorow his Body".[[/note]] To prevent his client from hanging, his lawyer, Robert Dundas, persuaded the jury to re-assert "its ancient right" to pronounce a verdict of "not guilty", thus preventing Carnegie from hanging but still accepting that he performed the acts libelled. With time, the "proven" verdict fell into desuetude[[note]]Posh lawyer-speak for "fell out of use"[[/note]] and so the system is where it is now. The "Scots verdict" is sometimes translated as "Not guilty and don't do it again", which is why some Scots lawyers want to get rid of it and the stigma it can attach to clients. Worse, because it puts the accused at no legal disadvantage, it cannot be appealed against, so someone is "not proven" in perpetuity.

Note that while the formal "not proven" verdict is only available in Scotland, this doesn't quite capture the whole picture. For instance Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)[[note]]At the time. A famous moderate, he became a Democrat in 2009 with the encouragement of his close friend UsefulNotes/JoeBiden.[[/note]] tried to vote "Not Proven" in UsefulNotes/BillClinton's impeachment trial; Chief Justice Rehnquist (who was presiding per the Constitution's rules for presidential impeachment) recorded his votes as "not guilty." This is justifiable in that in American law, "not guilty" means "not proven". It does not mean innocent, whether or not the defendant really is innocent. It's up to the government to prove someone broke the law. If they can't, they go free. This tends to lead to ConvictedByPublicOpinion in higher profile cases, where unless a new perp is brought up people (and the media) will tend to assume a defendant only went free because the courts were unable to prove they did it. Legally, not guilty is considered innocent, although you can be sued in civil courts (where the standard of proof is lower and where your previous "not guilty" verdict does ''not'' act as a defense) and the government can still seize your property even if you are found not guilty. They can also sometimes charge you with "civil rights" violations, as well.[[note]]For instance, during the Civil Rights movement in the American South, there were numerous instances of whites murdering blacks and being acquitted of murder (a State crime) by [[JokerJury all-white juries]] despite being obviously guilty, and even bragging about it in some cases. Desiring to punish them one way or another, the Federal government would then try them for violating the victim's civil rights (a Federal crime) by murdering them.[[/note]] And of course, [[WeAllLiveInAmerica we don't all live in America]], and in many European jurisdictions (including Scotland) double jeopardy is not observed and you can be tried ''again'' if new and damning evidence comes to light suggesting your guilt. Isn't the law fun?
7th Dec '15 3:41:18 PM margdean56
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Originally, the two verdicts open to a Scots jury were the standard "guilty" and "not guilty". However, in the 17th century, the Scottish Crown faced a rebellion by a small sect of Protestants, called [[TheFundamentalist the Convenanters]]. Such was the brutality of the Crown's crackdown, [[CrowningMomentOfAwesome Scottish juries refused to pass judgements of "guilty" upon Covenanters in protest.]] To combat this, Scottish judges [[RulesLawyer replaced the jury's role as pronouncers of guilt with that of finders-of-fact]] - the jury was asked to rule on specific factual allegations against the accused, and rule only that they were "proven" and "not proven". This persisted until the 1728 case of ''Carnegie of Findhaven'', where Mr Carnegie was accused of killing the Earl of Strathmore. However, the circumstances persuaded the jury that it was an accident.[[note]]Which, under modern Scots law, it bloody well wasn't - Carnegie was very drunk and ''had'' meant to murder another man who had pushed him into a ditch (where a combination of sucking mud and his own drunkenness would have killed him if not for the timely actions of the Earl and his servants). The Earl "stepping in to prevent any Mischief that might happen, received from Finhaven a mortal Wound, about an Inch below his Navel, which wounded his Puddings in three Parts, and went quite throrow his Body".[[/note]] To prevent his client from hanging, his lawyer, Robert Dundas, persuaded the jury to re-assert "its ancient right" to pronounce a verdict of "not guilty", thus preventing Carnegie from hanging but still accepting that he performed the acts libelled. With time, the "proven" verdict fell into desuetude[[note]]Posh lawyer-speak for "fell out of use"[[/note]] and so the system is where it is now. The "Scots verdict" is sometimes translated as "Not guilty and don't do it again", which is why some Scots lawyers want to get rid of it and the stigma it can attach to clients. Worse, because it puts the accused at no legal disadvantage, it cannot be appealed against, so someone is "not proven" in perpetuity.

to:

Originally, the two verdicts open to a Scots jury were the standard "guilty" and "not guilty". However, in the 17th century, the Scottish Crown faced a rebellion by a small sect of Protestants, called [[TheFundamentalist the Convenanters]].Covenanters]]. Such was the brutality of the Crown's crackdown, [[CrowningMomentOfAwesome Scottish juries refused to pass judgements of "guilty" upon Covenanters in protest.]] To combat this, Scottish judges [[RulesLawyer replaced the jury's role as pronouncers of guilt with that of finders-of-fact]] - -- the jury was asked to rule on specific factual allegations against the accused, and rule only that they were "proven" and "not proven". This persisted until the 1728 case of ''Carnegie of Findhaven'', where Mr Carnegie was accused of killing the Earl of Strathmore. However, the circumstances persuaded the jury that it was an accident.[[note]]Which, under modern Scots law, it bloody well wasn't - -- Carnegie was very drunk and ''had'' meant to murder another man who had pushed him into a ditch (where a combination of sucking mud and his own drunkenness would have killed him if not for the timely actions of the Earl and his servants). The Earl "stepping in to prevent any Mischief that might happen, received from Finhaven a mortal Wound, about an Inch below his Navel, which wounded his Puddings in three Parts, and went quite throrow thorow his Body".[[/note]] To prevent his client from hanging, his lawyer, Robert Dundas, persuaded the jury to re-assert "its ancient right" to pronounce a verdict of "not guilty", thus preventing Carnegie from hanging but still accepting that he performed the acts libelled. With time, the "proven" verdict fell into desuetude[[note]]Posh lawyer-speak for "fell out of use"[[/note]] and so the system is where it is now. The "Scots verdict" is sometimes translated as "Not guilty and don't do it again", which is why some Scots lawyers want to get rid of it and the stigma it can attach to clients. Worse, because it puts the accused at no legal disadvantage, it cannot be appealed against, so someone is "not proven" in perpetuity.
This list shows the last 10 events of 30. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.NotProven