Product Code Database
Not proven () was a verdict available to a court of law in Scotland until 2026. From 1728, under Scots law, a criminal trial could end in one of three verdicts, one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty"). The Scottish criminal jury: A very peculiar institution, Peter Duff, 62 Law & Contemp. Probs. 173 (Spring 1999)
Between the Restoration in the late 17th century and the early 18th century, jury in Scotland were expected only to find whether individual factual allegations were proven or not proven, rather than to rule on an accused's guilt. In 1728, the jury in a murder trial asserted "its ancient right" to declare a defendant "not guilty". Over time, the "not guilty" verdict regained wide acceptance and use amongst Scots juries, with the encouragement of defence lawyers. It eventually displaced "not proven" as the primary verdict of acquittal. Until 2026, juries could return a verdict of either "not guilty" or "not proven", with the same legal effect of acquittal.
Although historically it was a similar verdict to not guilty, in modern times not proven was typically used by a jury when there was a belief that the defendant is guilty but the Crown had not provided sufficient evidence.
The Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, passed by the Scottish Parliament in September 2025, includes provisions that removed the verdict. From 1 January 2026, only guilty and not guilty verdicts are available in new trials.
There is some disagreement between historians as to why this change happened. David Hume and Hugo Arnot argue that it was rooted in religious oppression. The Crown persecuted the Covenanters but popular support made it impossible to convict them in a jury trial. To pare the power of the jury, the Scottish judges began restricting the jury's role: no longer would the jury announce whether the accused was "guilty" or "not guilty"; instead it would decide whether specific factual allegations were "proven" or "not proven", and the judge would then decide whether to convict.
The reintroduction of the "not guilty" verdict was part of a wider movement during the 17th and 18th century which saw a gradual increase in the power of juries, such as the trial of William Penn in 1670, in which an English jury first gained the right to pass a verdict contrary to the law (known as jury nullification), and the trial of John Peter Zenger in New York in 1735 in which jury nullification is credited with establishing freedom of the press as a firm right in what became the United States. Legal academic Ian Willock argues that the 1728 case was "of great significance in calling a halt to a process of attrition which might have led to the total extinction of the criminal jury".
Although jurors continued to use both "not guilty" and "not proven" after 1728, jurors tended to favour the "not guilty" verdict over the "not proven" and the interpretation changed.
In 1827, Walter Scott, who was sheriff in the court of Selkirk, wrote in his journal that "the jury gave that bastard verdict, Not proven." The case he was referring to was the trial of Mary Elder for the poisoning of Margaret Warden.Roughead (1913), p. 189.
Proponents of abolition argued that the verdict was widely regarded as an acquittal used when the jury did not have enough evidence to Conviction but was not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to bring in a not guilty verdict. Conversely, its opponents argued that a two-verdict system would lead to an increase in wrongful convictions.
Following a not proven verdict in a criminal trial in 2015, Miss M successfully sued Stephen Coxen in the civil courts, in what was the first civil damages action for rape following an unsuccessful criminal prosecution in almost 100 years.
As of 1999, approximately one-third of all acquittal verdicts by Scottish juries used the formulation not proven; the others used not guilty. The verdict not proven was also available for judges in the summary procedure, and was employed in about a fifth of such acquittals. The proportion of not proven acquittals was generally higher in the more severe cases, as was the proportion of acquittals versus convictions. This might have many different reasons, for example that on average it might be more difficult to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in more serious cases.
Its most famous uses in the United States came when Senator Arlen Specter tried to vote "not proven" on the two articles of impeachment of Bill Clinton (his votes were recorded as "not guilty") and when, at the O. J. Simpson murder case, various reformers, including Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman's father, pushed for a change to "not proven" because of what they felt was an incorrect presumption of innocence on the part of Simpson.
The verdict is often referenced in US cases where the jury is obliged to find the state has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is widespread feeling that the defendant does not deserve the exoneration of a "not guilty" verdict. A popular saying about the "not proven" verdict is that it means "not guilty, but don't do it again".
In 2005, a proposal was made in the University of Chicago Law Review to introduce the not proven verdict into the United States.
|
|
