Our research reveals that many jurisdictions have addressed the issue of whether a prior acquittal or nol pros is admissible in a subsequent civil case involving the same operative facts. Almost without exception, when the acquittal is not an element of the civil claim, these jurisdictions prohibit admission of an acquittal or a nol pros in a later civil proceeding involving the same or similar underlying conduct. See, e.g., Rabon v. Great Southwest Fire Ins. Co., 818 F.2d 306, 309 (4th Cir. 1987)(“We adopt and apply here the rule that a federal trial court commits reversible error when it permits the plaintiff in a suit for fire insurance proceeds to present evidence of his nonprosecution or acquittal on related criminal arson charges”); McSweeney v. Utica Fire Ins. Co. of Oneida County N.Y., 224 F.2d 327, 328 (4th Cir. 1955) (applying South Carolina law and stating: “Since the burden of proof on the moving party to establish the crucial facts is heavier in a criminal than in a civil case, and there is a dissimilarity of parties, it has generally been held that an acquittal in a criminal case is not admissible in a civil action as evidence of the innocence of the accused.”); United States v. Burns, 103 F. Supp. 690, 691 (D. Md.) (In a case in which the insurance beneficiary was acquitted of murder of the insured, “records in criminal cases are not admissible in evidence in civil cases, although both [cases] arise from the same facts.”), aff’d, 200 F.2d 106 (4th Cir 1952); Morrison v. State, 267 Ala. 1, 100 So. 2d 744 (Ala. 1957)(“Verdicts in criminal cases are not admissible in civil cases arising out of the same transactions.”); Horn v. Cole, 203 Ark. 361, 156 S.W.2d 787, 789 (Ark. 1941)(involving a case in which the insurance beneficiary was acquitted of killing the insured, and stating: “The record of the criminal cause is not competent evidence in the civil action.”); Carvajal v. Adams, 405 So. 2d 763, 764 (Fla. 1981) (precluding evidence of prior acquittal on criminal charges arising out of the civil case), cert. denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1982); Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., 88 So. 2d 507, 507 (Fla. 1956)(concluding that testimony by police officers that they did not arrest the defendant for violation of traffic laws was not admissible because “evidence of defendant’s conviction or acquittal in a criminal proceeding is not admissible in a civil suit against the defendant arising out of the occurrence which formed the basis of the criminal charge against him” and evidence of an arrest is the first step towards disposition of a case); State v. Dubose, 152 Fla. 304, 11 So. 2d 477, 481 (Fla. 1943)(“An acquittal in a criminal prosecution does not constitute evidence of innocence in a subsequent civil action based upon the alleged criminal act, and is not admissible in favor of the accused in a civil action to prove that he was not guilty of the crime with [**169] which he was charged.”); C.L. Maddox, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 208 Ill. App. 3d 1042, 567 N.E.2d 749, 758, 153 Ill. Dec. 791 (“Evidence of an individual’s prior acquittal in an earlier criminal proceeding is inadmissible in a subsequent [***20] civil action.”), appeal denied, 139 Ill. 2d 594, 575 N.E.2d 912, 159 Ill. Dec. 105 (Ill. 1991); State v. Roach, 83 Kan. 606, 611, 112 P. 150, 152 (Kan. 1910)(noting that, in an injunction action, evidence of a prior acquittal for selling intoxicating liquors was inadmissible because different standards of proof in criminal and civil trials make criminal verdicts inadmissible in a civil trial based on the same occurrence.); Billy’s Serv. v. American Ins. Co., 37 Mass. App. Ct. 584, 641 N.E.2d 713, 713 (Mass. 1991) (“Evidence of an acquittal in a prior criminal trial is not admissible in a civil trial involving similar issues.”), review denied, 419 Mass. 1102, 646 N.E.2d 409 (Mass. 1995); Elliott v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 701 S.W.2d 462, 466 (Mo. 1985) (Evidence of prior acquittal in criminal arson case not admissible in insured’s civil action against insurer to cover the loss because of “inherent differences” between civil and criminal trials); Penn. Turnpike Com. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 412 Pa. 222, 194 A.2d 423, 426 (Pa. 1963)(“In the case of a judgment of acquittal or nolle prosequi, Pennsylvania has consistently [***21] followed the rule that the criminal judgment is not admissible as evidence to prove that the defendant did not do the act complained of.”); Bobereski v. Insurance Co. of Pa., 105 Pa. Super 585, 161 A. 412, 415 (1932)(concluding that evidence of a nolle prosequi is inadmissible in a subsequent civil trial); Tennessee Odin Ins. Co. v. Dickey, 190 Tenn. 96, 228 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Tenn. 1950)("‘The acquittal of the plaintiff upon an indictment … is not entitled to any effect as evidence in a civil action, as an answer to the defense of [the crime], or as tending to show, that, in fact, the plaintiff did not commit the [crime].’"); American General Fire and Cas. Co. v. McInnis Book Store, Inc., 860 S.W.2d 484, 487 (Tex. 1993)(“An acquittal in a criminal action is not ordinarily admissible evidence in a subsequent civil prosecution involving common fact issues.”); State v. Benavidez, 365 S.W.2d 638, 641, 6 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 278 (Tex. 1963)(“Ordinarily, acquittals in criminal actions are not admissible as evidence in subsequent civil proceedings involving common fact issues.”); Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Dean, 233 Va. 260, 355 S.E. 2d 579, 582, 3 Va. Law Rep. 2345 (Va. 1987) (The trial court correctly excluded evidence concerning the disposition of the criminal maiming case in a subsequent civil suit to recover under the insurance policy.); Hatch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 930 P.2d 382, 393 (Wyo. 1991)(“Evidence of an acquittal of criminal charges is not relevant in a subsequent civil trial relating to the same incident.”).
Of course, the doctrines are two sides of the same coin, so changing one would likely change the other one, but I bet it’d take a while for all of that to get worked out.