Three men who were surely guilty of — at least! — covering up the details of a murder were acquitted yesterday, even though the judge thinks they are guilty. From the Post:

One of the most sensational criminal trials in D.C. history ended Tuesday with the judge acquitting three men of covering up the slaying of Robert Wone — even though she believes that they know who did it.
D.C. Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz said she thinks that the three defendants made up a story about an intruder breaking in and stabbing the overnight guest at their Northwest Washington home. But in the end, prosecutors had not proved their case, she said, concluding a trial that captivated the region and much of the nation with its most salacious elements: money, class, sex and homicide.
The key to the verdict was the strong distinction between what she might feel in her gut and what was proved beyond a reasonable doubt in her courtroom, the judge said.
“In the ordinary decisions we make in our daily lives, a person who believes something strongly, but without evidentiary support beyond a reasonable doubt, may still be correct in her belief and responsible in her decision-making,” Leibovitz said.
“But to convict an accused, a trier of fact must be firmly convinced based on evidentiary certainty.”

I’m willing to cut the judge some slack here. If she believes the prosecution didn’t make its case, she is duty bound to act accordingly. But it is an awful shame it had to be this way.

Oh, and since this is one of these issues that comes up in the Corner from time to time, let me anticipate some criticism. I think the defendants are guilty — guilty of covering up a murder (and hence making them at least accessories after the fact) and almost surely guilty of murder themselves. Some folks think that if you’re acquitted at court then private citizens can’t — not only shouldn’t but somehow can’t — call them guilty. I think this is nonsense. Criminal trials are legal proceedings and they are binding on the government, determining what kind of legal punishment can be administered. It’s up to the rest of us to decide on our own what we think. Certainly a court verdict should inform what we think, but it needn’t settle it. For instance, I think O.J. Simpson is a murderer. I don’t care that he was acquitted.

I bring this up because this case is a great example of my point. Even the judge is publicly saying she thinks these slimy men are criminals, she just laments that the state didn’t prove it. So do I.