…I’m sure this was probably discussed after the OJ verdict, but where I live, we recently had a trial where someone was acquitted of murder. However, they were found guilty in a civil suit of being responsible for the victim’s death. How can someone be found not guilty of a crime in a federal court, but still have to pay in a civil trial as being responsible? Doesn’t the acquital indicate that the defendant was not involved in the murder? Take, for example, the OJ case (I only use it because it gained so much exposure that everyone knows most of the details, and the case here was very similar, excluding the celebrity status). OJ was acquitted in a court of law of murdering two people, but was found in a civil suit as responsible, or contributing, to their deaths. I don’t see how someone who was found not guilty of murder can still be susceptible in civil court.
- Also, another murder case here from several years ago involved a gentleman who got away with murder because of lack of evidence. He later admitted to killing the victim, and was found guilty of perjury. He served his time, and was released. Now, however, the state has decided that THEY will try him for perjury, since the first perjury conviction was federal. From a legal standpoint, can this be done? Wouldn’t this be “double jeopardy” because he is being tried twice for the same crime?
