The first: "He is well acquainted with the circumstances of the case; He was directly impressed by the defendant; He regularly monitored the way each side conducted its own affairs. Therefore, a special reason is required for the Court of Appeals to intervene in the discretion of the first instance in this matter" [Reich [8] – M. 8].
- As an instruction Article 80 According to the Penal Law, a prerequisite for granting indemnification or compensation is the condition that a certain person is found innocent. On the binary path of law, a person who is obligated or innocent in his judgment comes out – so and no longer – and we are now talking only about one who is found innocent in the law. The question at hand is whether it is correct and proper – as a consideration for granting compensation or indemnity to the-their granting or partial granting – because we will give our opinion on the type of credit: whether it was a complete credit, whether it was a credit from the doubter or if it was a technical credit. Is it said that a person's acquittal under the law is a mishaka act and that one should not be careful about the type of acquittal, or is it said that we will also give our opinion on the type of acquittal?
- This question cannot be easily decided, and it is not too difficult to find considerations here and there. The fundamental question that is asked is whether we are permitted – or perhaps we are not permitted – to examine the acquittal of a defendant in a trial, to examine his acquittal on its merits, and to ask ourselves: What is the nature of that acquittal? Why and why is the defendant acquitted? Was an acquittal like an impervious curtain through which nothing can be seen and we are not permitted to peer behind it, or is it said that we are entitled to examine the nature of an acquittal for a decision on the request of a defendant who is entitled to compensation and indemnification?
On the one hand, the claimant can claim that an acquittal is an acquittal. An acquittal is an act of miksha and cannot be divided. The starting point for a decision on the defendant's request for indemnification and compensation, the claimant will argue, is the binary station of the trial, and this is also the way of the provision of section 80 of the Penal Law. An acquittal means that the prosecution has not met the burden that the law has set for it to prove the guilt of a defendant – proof beyond a reasonable doubt – regardless of the nature of the acquittal: absolute acquittal, acquittal of doubt or technical acquittal, and the reasons for the acquittal will be on their merits, as they may be. If this is the case in the main proceeding of criminal law, why is it not the same in the proceeding of the main proceeding when examining and deciding the question of indemnification and compensation? See and compare P. MacKinnon “Costs and Compensation for the Innocent Accused” [53],
at pp. 496-499. When a certain person is acquitted, the law of the Kingdom is that it has not been proven that a certain person committed the acts (or omissions) attributed to him in the indictment. And if this is the way things are,