root wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 10:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 12:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified
rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements
is appropriate
What judgement would then be appropriate if none of the "above"
judgements are appropriate, but the defendant did not breach the
specified rule via the specified act?
Incidentally, I don't believe such a situation is possible; if the
defendant did not breach the specified rule via the specified act,
then either INNOCENT or UNIMPUGNED must be appropriate. But then this
change accomplishes nothing, so far as I can see.
I don't think it's possible, either. The intent is that, if the rule
is ever broken such that it becomes possible, then the system will
block itself rather than force an undeserved GUILTY verdict.
