Constitutional Rights, Rules of Evidence

Innocent vs. Not Guilty Verdicts: What Juries (and Everyone Else) Should Understand

Watch Innocent vs. Not Guilty Verdict on YouTube (2 min)

When I talk to clients about their cases, I often bring up one of the most famous trials in history: the trial of Jesus Christ. Not because I’m comparing anyone to Christ, but because it shows the difference between being innocent and being falsely accused. It also highlights something that gets lost in the courtroom—and in society: no one is truly innocent.

Let’s be real. We’ve all messed up. We’ve hurt people, said the wrong thing, acted out of pride or anger. Some of us have done worse. And sometimes, the people we’ve wronged retaliate—not always fairly. A fight with a partner becomes a criminal accusation. A bad decision becomes a motive for someone to lie.

That’s the tricky part when you’re on trial. Yes, you may be innocent of the crime. But you’re not necessarily an innocent person. And juries need to understand that distinction. Because often, the prosecution paints the defendant as a monster—and when the jury sees bad behavior, they assume guilt.

But bad behavior isn’t a crime. And guilt beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t the same as being a bad spouse or a crappy friend.

This comes up all the time in overcharged cases. Let’s take Oregon’s Measure 11 crimes—mandatory minimum prison time. If someone is accused of Assault in the Second Degree, that could mean years behind bars. But what if the facts don’t match that charge? What if it was a push, not a weapon? What if there was no injury?

Now you’re facing prison for something that should’ve been a misdemeanor—something that, if charged properly, might’ve been resolved with probation or even dismissed later. But once you’re overcharged, your only choice is to fight. Because a plea could ruin your life just as much as a conviction.

That’s the difference between not guilty and innocent. You can be guilty of bad choices, guilty of being human. But that doesn’t mean you’re guilty of a felony—or that you should go to prison.

And that’s what we try to help juries understand. We don’t pretend our clients are saints. We just ask for the truth to matter more than the emotion. Because being “not guilty” isn’t about being perfect. It’s about being judged fairly.

Marriage grants two evidentiary shields that can keep private conversations and unwanted testimony out of court. Understanding how these rules actually work can spare families the strain and uncertainty of compelled disclosure.

The testimonial privilege

Courts in every state follow the United States Supreme Court’s lead in Trammel v. United States, 445 US 40 (1980). A witness spouse alone decides whether to speak against the defendant spouse. Prosecutors cannot drag that witness to the stand or force an answer. Oregon codifies the principle in ORS 136.655. The privilege lasts only for the life of the marriage and disappears if the couple divorces before trial, but while it exists the decision remains entirely with the witness.

The marital communications privilege

Oregon Evidence Rule 505 blocks the state from introducing confidential statements exchanged during a valid marriage. Either spouse may invoke this privilege, and it survives divorce as well as death. The policy goal is protecting the zone of privacy that makes candid conversation possible. Because both parties own the privilege, one spouse may stop the other from testifying about those private words.

Where the shield fails
• Voluntary waiver
A witness spouse can choose to testify. Once words are spoken the privilege cannot be reclaimed.
After waiver, every disclosed fact is fair game for cross examination because the law favors the search for truth once privilege is relinquished.

• Crimes against the household
Allegations of violence or abuse inside the family cancel both shields. Oregon follows the common law rule that safety overrides marital privacy.
Courts reason that protecting vulnerable partners and children outranks secrecy.

• Joint criminal venture
Communications made to plan or conceal crime lose protection everywhere in the country.
Privilege is designed to defend trust, not conspiracy.

Practical counsel

Clients often ask what to share at home. The safe answer is as little as possible. Silence keeps loved ones clear of subpoenas and the stress of a witness seat. When a spouse presses for details, a simple explanation works: knowing less keeps the household out of jeopardy.

Two additional habits serve defendants well.

• Speak in person, not over text or email
Digital records live forever and risk discovery even if the spouse refuses to testify.

• Contact counsel before any joint decision
A quick legal consult can flag hidden pitfalls, such as discussing the case in front of friends or children who hold no privilege at all.

A closing thought

Silence costs nothing yet can preserve everything. Knowing when to talk and when to stay quiet may be the single most valuable skill a defendant takes into a criminal case.