Actually, to the falsely accused, there is a world of difference between these two. We also now have a criminal verdict of actual innocence, at least at the appellate level.vhauk wrote:Not guilty is the same as innocent of the charge.
Innocent until proven guilty does not one thing for the person falsely accused, especially when the DA plays to the media about the charges.
You may remember that there was a political storm in the media a few years ago. A prisoner was set free from prison after many years. The court ruled he was not guilty and the DA decided not to retry the accused. Susan Combs was the comptroller and refused to make a payment under the restitution law. Her argument was that the law required the judge to rule that the case was overturned due to actual innocence and not just due to reasonable doubt. A lot of people thought she should have paid anyway.
And to keep this tied to the original subject, I will point out that Rick Perry was one of those who thought she should have ordered the payment It was one of the major disagreements between the two, around the time of the Amazon tax case (another point of disagreement between the two).