I remember reading once that in English common law (and in most American law, since it follows ECL) you can be found guilty or not guilty-- but in Scot's common law-- you could be found guilty, not guilty or Not proven-- so it was moot (debatable) as to your guilt or innocence. (Jo-- any idea if this still holds? or does Scotland use ECL?)
In US it might be a hung jury-- but my impressions of Not proven is all the jurors agree-- they want to find you guilty-- but didn't think the case made was strong enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt--so it was still debatable-- Unlike an acquittal, Not guilty-not proven didn't quite clear your name.
Sparts case of a point being moot--was a good example of a second way it is moot is used. a sense that no matter what is decided, the outcome won't be effected.
Crossing thread-- i realize i am one of those people who use noodle for noddle-- as in Use your noodle! until it was pointed out-- i didn't even see the differences between the two words! but i know how to use moot!
