我要吃瓜

Citation

Duff RA (2024) Justice In-Between?. Edinburgh Law Review, 28 (2), pp. 221-228. https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2024.0895

Abstract
First paragraph: In this fascinating new book, Federico Picinali offers a prima facie justification for the introduction of a new verdict in criminal trials for serious crimes, intermediate between conviction and acquittal: “conditional acquittal”, to be used if there is substantial evidence of a defendant’s guilt, but falling short of the standard of proof (“beyond reasonable doubt”, for instance) required for conviction; its main effect is to permit a later retrial if new evidence of the defendant’s guilt, with substantive probative value, is found. This verdict is related to some existing legal provisions. It resembles the Scottish verdict of “not proven”, but gives it substantive teeth: whereas the effects of “not proven” are identical to those of acquittal, a conditional acquittal makes a retrial possible. English law also makes a retrial possible in serious cases if “new and compelling evidence” against the defendant emerges: but whereas this allows for a retrial after an acquittal, in Picinali’s scheme retrial would be possible only following a conditional acquittal. It thus, he argues, meets the main objections to current provisions for double jeopardy?–?objections to do with finality, with distress, and with public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Journal
Edinburgh Law Review: Volume 28, Issue 2