"Proven" is from old Scottish law.

By contrast to English and American law, there are not TWO possible verdicts in a criminal trial, but three. In England and America, the jury may return a verdict of either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Not both, and not any other option.

In old Scottish law (I've heard that this has changed, but I don't know), the verdict might be "Guilty", "Not Guilty", or "Not Proven". The significance of "Not Proven" is that the prosecution has not sustained its burden or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the evidence doesn't show that the defendant didn't do it. "Not Proven" doesn't give the defendant a clean bill of legal health, but declares that the State may not impose the punishment due to an established guilty party.

NOTE: On a related subject, in Anglo-American law, a jury NEVER returns a verdict of "Innocent". The "Not Guilty" verdict doesn't deal with innocence at all, but with the failure of proof of guilt. Innocence in our system is a moral or ethical concept, not a legal one. A verdict of "Not Guilty" doesn't find that "the defendant didn't do it", but that "the prosecution didn't prove that the defendant did the crime alleged against him", and doesn't distinguish between the factual not having committed the act and the mere failure of proof.

Dave Oesterreich