Can a finding of fact from one court proceeding be used in another? Can they do so even if there’s a higher standard of proof? Here are some examples to explain what I mean:
Person A is suing person B. Person A alledges that person B drove his car into person A’s house, and is asking for reparations. As evidence, person A presents records of person B’s conviction of drunk driving and destruction of property. If the criminal court had a finding of fact that person B did in fact drive into person A’s house, is that considered conclusive proof that it happened in the civil court?
Now consider the other direction. First, person A sues person B, and the judge determines that person B did in fact drive drunk, and did drive into person A’s house. Can that finding of fact be used in a criminal proceeding? What happens if person B is compelled to testify in the civil proceedings? I take it that evidence must be ignored in the criminal case?
Also, what if someone challenges the records of a finding of fact. That is, suppose person A presents a record of person B’s conviction, and person B replies “That’s just a piece of paper with typing on it. Anyone could have created that.” Would person A have to actually bring in the judge from the crime to testify or something like that?
Finally,
I can’t answer the question exactly, but I can point out that O.J. was acquitted in his criminal trial, but found culpable in his civil trial. So, while it may have been helpful to have a conviction (your question) it is clearly not necessary.
I have no clue what happens in the reverse case (civil trial comes before criminal trial.) I would suspect that since civil standards of proof are looser than criminal standards, that the verdict would not be admissible.
A longer answer is that this question has to do with the legal concepts of collateral estoppel and res judicata (also known as issue preclusion and claim preclusion). These subjects are discussed for several weeks in a law school civil procedure course. I’ve done legal research in this area, and the law can be very subtle and tricky.
Some of the important issues as to whether the findings of fact in one case will bind the parties in another case are whether the parties in the cases are the same (or similar), whether the finding of fact at issue was necessary to the ultimate conclusion of the first case, what burden of proof was necessary in the first case, the procedural status of the first case when the facts were found, and a host of other factors.
Where a party needs a higher burden of proof in the second case, a finding of fact in the first case cannot be used in the second. For instance, a civil finding that someone is liable for damages caused by his drunk driving (which would be found under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard) could not be introduced into a criminal trial for drunk driving (which requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”). On the other hand, if someone were convicted of drunk driving, that could be used in a subsequent civil trial for damages caused by the drunk driving incident (though whether the conviction would be treated as conclusive proof or merely evidence that the defendant was driving drunk and caused the damages may vary in different circumstances).
With regard to proving findings of fact in prior cases, the party trying to use the findings would normally introduce a copy of the findings that has been certified as accurate by the clerk of the court that issued them. Normally, a certified copy of court findings will be accepted as conclusive evidence, unless the party objecting can show that there is some problem such as modification or forgery.