since they dismissed the case and the market is confusing with arguments on both sides , im asking @mods to NA

Arguments for each side:

yes outcome - dismissal is 'not' a guilty verdict, so this should be yes

no outcome - dismissal is not being found 'not guilty' so this should be no

na outcome - they dismissed the case, dismiss the market :)

PSA there is no such thing as a 'not guilty' verdict apparently in this trial , the more you know!

Cc @TrentonOsborn replying to your review comment. See the discussion below. The other outcome would have been a YES if it was dismissed actually, not a NO. It was depending how you read the question. ( Which is why it should be NAed) I had your interpretation too at first. But it was based off questionable legal assumptions

Cc @Noone9ff8 replying to your review. Read below for the discussion on why this could have been both a yes and no, and had to be naed

The probability of an alternate outcome such as this, or a hung jury, is why I bet on NO. This is not a not guilty verdict, so it should evaluate to NO.

Case dismissed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-alec-baldwins-involuntary-manslaughter-trial-dismisses-case-rcna161536

"The sanction of dismissal is the only warranted remedy."
Neither Guilty Nor NOT Guilty.

Yeah I'm not sure why the market was created with not guilty instead of guilty, but this is a NO. There was no verdict.

i specifically worded this to be Not Guilty , so this would resolve no

actually @mods if you want to NA this i am OK with that too. otherwise i will NO

Glad I am no longer a mod.

Bruh, dismissing the case is a finding of not guilty. DOES NOT say a jury has to be involved.

This is a not guilty finding. It is outrageous to say that the State's burden to prove its case in a fair fashion having failed, this is not a finding (by a judge) of not guilty. The question does not require a jury verdict.

This is why Manifold can get to be not fun.

Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case with prejudice based on the misconduct of police and prosecutors over the withholding of evidence from the defense in the 2021 shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film "Rust."

Dismissal With Prejudice: Dismissal of charges. The case is permanently closed, and the plaintiff is prohibited from filing another lawsuit based on the same claim

Dismissal Without Prejudice: Dismissal of charges. The prosecutor can, in the future, either refile the charges or file new charges based on the same alleged criminal incident.

Not Guilty: Acquittal of the charges and more than likely no chance to refile same charges.

Guilty : Convicted of the charges by "Rules Of Governing Court With or Without Jury."

just to be clear - dismissing is NOT a finding of 'NOT GUILTY' so this market cannot resolve yes

i dont think ANYONE expected the judge to dismiss it suddenly like this. and i agree that these sorts of events make manifold not fun. which is why im open to NAing this market if mods deem it acceptable. but there is no way this can resolve YES

@DistinctlySkeptical Nice rebrand. 👍

I got into cryptography young, crypto bros ruined my name so I tried to conform, but F that anymore. Crypto is still cool in a sense of actually using it and not hoarding it, but that is a whole different conversation lol.

Just to be clear, that's absolutely incorrect.

what is @FrederickNorris

A dismissal of the charges with prejudice is a finding of not guilty. I don't know what could be more clear.

are you a lawyer or something bc nobody else seems to think this, i hvnt heard that before

I don't know what anybody seems to think. There is no finding of "innocent". You are "GUILTY" or you're not. Since there is no finding of guilt, and in fact, this ruling precludes a finding of GUILT in the future, this is a finding of not guilty.

You seem to be of the opinion there are multiple outcomes, but there are two. The state PROVES GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (guilty) or fails to (not guilty).

oh i see, youre taking NOT GUILTY in a logical sense - as in NOT the guilty verdict.

whereas i was reading it as the verdict of 'NOT GUILTY'?

more evidence to support the NA i guess, verdicts can be confusing. waiting to see wht mods think about all this

If you mentioned a jury verdict in the question, only then would there be any kind of real question here.

The question does not say "the jury finds him not guilty". Now, that did not happen. But the Court absolutely found him not guilty. That's why he's free to go.

All I can tell you is, your instincts on this are wrong.

i think we're just reading it two different ways but thats fine, i support NAing if mods let me. i prefer markets work in the spirit of the question

It's not a NA either. He was found not guilty. The charges can't be re-brought.

Again, if your description said a jury had to be involved, it would raise a question.

A judge can, by the way, reverse a jury's decision, too.

The end result here is: Was Alec Baldwin found guilty? NO, he was not. Hence, NOT GUILTY. This isn't complicated.

i didnt ask if he was found guilty. i asked if he was found 'not guilty'

Do you understand there is no such thing as an innocent verdict?

The case is proven (guilty) or not (not guilty).

Again, you seem to think a jury being involved is important, even though your question doesn't mention a jury. What if there was a judgment of acquittal after a jury found him guilty?

You have zero description posted, and now are trying to do some ridiculous parsing, such that having the charges thrown out is not the same as being found not guilty.

i didnt assume a jury or judge when this was made at all, and i am not a lawyer. so if i accept everything youre saying, i made it totally wrong, so it should probably be NAed anyway

i thought 'not guilty' was a specific verdict (as i think many others did lol)

There are many ways to be not guilty. One way to be guilty. A judge cannot overrule a jury's not guilty verdict. She CAN overrule a guilty verdict.

It is not an accident that "not guilty" is used. Were you found guilty? No.

Let's imagine the jury couldn't reach a verdict. In that case, this market would have remained open. Because there was no verdict at all. And he could be retried.

But in this case, the judge precluded a finding of guilt.

Listen, if this was real money, I'd be on fire. I'm just trying to help you understand why this isn't close. This is a not guilty "finding".

I would say it is specific in the fact that you can't be tried for the same charges.
The only argument I could see, would be that it is dismissed with prejudice, which is a dismissal attached to the "can't be tried for the same charges". But as a former mod, I would still say the bad words "50/50" lol.
But I also get @FrederickNorris points, though I don't agree fully enough to say resolving this NO would be an incorrect resolution.

yes i understand the arguments on both a YES and NO side. original market was made with a different understanding of how the trial would work.