Acquits

To acquit is to declare a person innocent of a crime or wrongdoing, thereby releasing them from legal guilt. This action is typically undertaken by a judge or jury following the presentation of evidence. It signifies that the prosecution has failed to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Acquittal results in the defendant's freedom, allowing them to leave the legal proceedings without penalty for the specific charges. Beyond criminal law, 'acquits' can also figuratively apply to relieving someone of blame, responsibility, or obligation in non-legal contexts. The word underscores the concept of exoneration and the restoration of one's reputation or freedom.

Acquits meaning with examples

• After weeks of deliberation, the jury acquitted the defendant of all charges related to the alleged fraud. The defense attorney's skillful cross-examination of witnesses, along with the lack of concrete evidence linking the accused, proved pivotal in achieving the acquittal. The relieved defendant was embraced by family and friends. The courtroom erupted with emotional reactions following the reading of the verdict, as the weight of uncertainty dissolved.
• Despite the compelling circumstantial evidence, the jury acquitted the suspect due to insufficient direct evidence linking him to the crime. The prosecution was unable to establish a definitive connection, which led the jury to the only just decision, by adhering to the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Public opinion was divided and a retrial was considered, but the prosecution's case remained weakened, and the suspect was released.
• The evidence presented at trial failed to meet the threshold of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and the judge had no alternative other than to acquit the individual. The defense team emphasized the questionable integrity of some of the evidence and created doubts among the jurors, resulting in their ultimate decision. The news of acquittal brought solace to supporters, whilst frustrations were shared by the complainants involved.
• The politician was acquitted of corruption charges, the court citing a lack of conclusive proof of wrongdoing. The scandal, however, had already damaged their political career and their reputation, as the public was left with lingering doubts. Despite the acquittal, the individual remained under intense scrutiny by the media and their colleagues. A new investigation was launched to review the handling of the case.
• The company was acquitted of breaching environmental regulations, as their legal team successfully argued that the regulations were vague and their actions were not definitively in violation. The acquittal allowed the company to avoid hefty fines, but it raised questions about the clarity of the environmental laws in general. The judge recommended a review of these laws and called for improvements in the process.