U.S. prosecutors get guilty verdict in Capitol riot case, extending win streak

[GoodTaste]

U.S. prosecutors get guilty verdict in Capitol riot case, extending win streak
May 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Friday extended its streak of victories in jury trials against rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, securing a guilty verdict in its prosecution of a New Jersey man facing a felony charge.
Source: Reuters

The phrase "prosecutors get guilty verdict" appears to have two opposite meanings at the first glance for me: (1) the prosecutors are judged to be guilty at court; (2) the prosecutors win at court because the man they indicted is judged to be guilty.

The context indicates the (2) is the case. But do you native speakers are puzzled as well as you read the headline for the first time?

 

[5jj]

U.S. prosecutors get guilty verdict in Capitol riot case, extending win streak
. But do you native speakers are puzzled as well as you read the headline for the first time?

No. In the unlikely event that prosecutors were being prosecuted in a riot, case, they would not be extending a winning streak if they were found guilty.

 

[emsr2d2]

The context indicates the (2) is the case no full stop here but do are you native speakers are puzzled as well as you read the headline for the first time?

 

[SoothingDave]

U.S. prosecutors get guilty verdict in Capitol riot case, extending win streak


The context indicates the (2) is the case. But do you native speakers are puzzled as well as you read the headline for the first time?

No. If for some reason the "prosecutors" were the ones on trial, then we would say that they "were found guilty." Not that they "get a guilty verdict."