Is it fair that a person can be found "Not Guilty" in a criminal court, and then held to be liable in civil court for essentially the same thing?
by 
FLYxNIGHT
ANSWERS: 3
-
Definitely. "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent" - there are a lot of legal loopholes that can result in a ng verdict, plus there are times when it's necessary to make reparations for something even if you are not technically guilty of a crime.
-
Sure. The bar is set higher in a criminal court because freedoms can be taken away if found guilty. The government has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a crime was committed in order to throw someone in jail. A Not Guilty verdict can mean the defendant is innocent or it can mean "guilt not proven". In a civil court, the burden is "a preponderance of the evidence." In otherwords, did they most likely do it? In civil courts, property (money) can be seized, but freedoms are not taken. OJ is the perfect example of your scenario. An overwhelming amount of evidence indicated he committed the murder, but the state's burden was not met according to the jury and they let him go free. The civil courts found that most of the evidence indicated he did it and he has a $32 million judgment. (Which he has not paid a dime on)
-
Yes. criminal court and civil court are two entirely different arms of the government. Some evidence, not admissable in criminal court, can be used in civil court, even as hearsay evidence.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC