acquittal

noun · Freispruch

Freispruch is the right word, § 260 StPO, but a German acquittal carries an internal split English law blurs, aus tatsächlichen Gründen where the act was not proven and aus rechtlichen Gründen where the proven act was not an offence, and its finality is looser, a Freispruch can be reopened against the accused on the narrow grounds of § 362 StPO.

Which translation, when

Freispruchthe acquittal, § 260 StPO, its grounds set out under § 267 V StPO, whether the act was not proven, aus tatsächlichen Gründen, or the proven act was not punishable, aus rechtlichen Gründen.

Einstellungthe discontinuance, § 170 II or § 260 III StPO, where the case is dropped or barred rather than decided on the merits, which is not an acquittal and lacks its ne-bis-in-idem force.

Why

An English acquittal is a verdict of not guilty and, under autrefois acquit and now the narrow exceptions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, largely final. Freispruch, § 260 StPO, matches it as the spoken outcome but carries a distinction English usage does not mark, a Freispruch aus tatsächlichen Gründen, the act was not proven, against one aus rechtlichen Gründen, the proven conduct was not an offence, § 267 V StPO, and which of the two it was can matter for later civil or disciplinary use. Its finality is also statutory rather than absolute, the Wiederaufnahme zuungunsten des Freigesprochenen under § 362 StPO permits reopening only on narrow grounds such as forgery of the evidence or false testimony, and a 2021 amendment adding a fresh-evidence ground for grave crimes was struck down by the Bundesverfassungsgericht in 2023, so the ne bis in idem of Art. 103 III GG is narrower and more conditional than an English lawyer might assume. And Einstellung, a case discontinued or barred, must not be read as Freispruch, it decides nothing on the merits. So the word translates cleanly while the finality and the grounds behind it do not.

Typical mistakes

A Freispruch splits into aus tatsächlichen and aus rechtlichen Gründen, § 267 V StPO, a difference that can matter later, so an undifferentiated acquittal hides which one was given.
An Einstellung is not a Freispruch, a discontinued or barred case, § 170 II or § 260 III StPO, decides nothing on the merits and lacks the finality of an acquittal, so translating dropped as acquitted overstates the outcome.
German ne bis in idem is statutory and narrow, § 362 StPO allows reopening against the acquitted on limited grounds, so a Freispruch does not guarantee the degree of finality an English acquittal carries.

What matters

A German judgment reporting a Freispruch, read across into English: acquittal is the right word, but the reader who needs to know whether the matter can return must see § 362 StPO and whether the Freispruch was aus tatsächlichen or aus rechtlichen Gründen, because English assumptions about finality do not transfer to the German provision.

Authority

§ 260 StPO
§ 267 StPO
§ 362 StPO

What the machine misses

Acquittal is rendered Freispruch reliably, and as a word it fits, but the output cannot show that a German Freispruch carries an internal split, aus tatsächlichen against aus rechtlichen Gründen, § 267 V StPO, nor that its finality rests on § 362 StPO and is narrower than English autrefois acquit. The reader is left assuming a uniformity and a finality the German acquittal does not quite have, and may miss that a discontinued case is not an acquittal at all.

See what the machine does with this clause →

Examples

to acquit the defendant	den Angeklagten freisprechen
the acquittal became final	der Freispruch wurde rechtskräftig
an acquittal for lack of evidence	ein Freispruch aus tatsächlichen Gründen

More notes on these sections

conviction Verurteilung