Jones wasn’t awarded anything because he dropped the suit a few months after filing it.

Defamation cases are civil, so ending up in jail isn’t one of the possible outcomes.

Finally, defamation cases in the US are almost never resolved by determining whether or not a statement was factually accurate, so in general it is a mistake to infer anything from the result of a case alone (you always need to know the details of the decision).

I think OP meant that he'd end up in jail if child pornography possession could be proven.

For sure. I think the “was he awarded billions bit” just triggered me. It’s like, if we’re going to fight some stupid political proxy war via this court case, maybe we should take 10 seconds and actually find out the details of David court case.

You can be acquitted without being innocent. See OJ.

So since OJ got off you assume everyone acquitted may still be guilty?

That's a great system you got there.

You might be forgetting OJ was found guilty in Civil Court.

How can you be guilty in Civil Court and not guilty in Criminal Court? Easy. Two different criteria for guilt. In Criminal Court it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the crime. In Civil Court it must be shown that it's more likely than not that you committed the crime. In the case of OJ what this means is it's more likely than not that he murdered his wife but it's not beyond reasonable doubt that he did so. OJ was acquitted of murder in Criminal Court and forced to pay his wife's family for damages in Civil Court since it's more likely than not that he murdered his wife.

Whether you think this is a great system or not is subjective but that's how the system works.

I'm aware of the civil trial, but it was even clear in the criminal trial he murdered his wife.

Between the blood on everything he owned, the car chase, the domestic abuse calls etc.

He was acquitted by the jury due to racial tensions. Certainly not something to apply to any other case, it was a special exception of injustice.

> everyone acquitted may still be guilty?

The standard for acquitting is reasonable doubt. You're presumed innocent until proven guilty, so in theory you aren't necessarily required to prove your innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt. While it may work differently in practice at times, that idea IS actually a great one.

So yes, it may still be possible that someone who is acquitted is in fact guilty, but the prosecution isn't allowed a second chance.

> While it may work differently in practice at times, that idea IS actually a great one.

Exactly. That's my point. Don't assume everyone who was acquitted is guilty because of the few exceptions of injustice such as OJ.

>Don't assume everyone who was acquitted is guilty because of the few exceptions of injustice such as OJ.

No one was. Even you said

>So since OJ got off you assume everyone acquitted may still be guilty?

which is not the same thing.

No one is pronounced innocent in the US justice system, so by definition yes, anyone who is found not guilty "may still be guilty".

Nobody said they are. They said they "may be"