# Please explain being sued after being fouind not guilty **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 28, 2008, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201 "2008-04-28T11:04:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/1 "2008-04-28T11:04:22Z")
In several cases in America - OJ Simpson being the most prominent - people have been successfully sued after being found Not Guilty. Why is this allowed? Surely it violates the principle of Double Jeopardy? I’m aware that it’s a civil suit and the test becomes ‘on the balance of probability’ rather than ‘beyond reasonably doubt’. OJS was a high profile case, but if you allow a civil suit for that, why not allow it for cases like shoplifting? ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/2 "2008-04-28T11:12:56Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] In several cases in America - OJ Simpson being the most prominent - people have been successfully sued after being found Not Guilty. Why is this allowed? Surely it violates the principle of Double Jeopardy? I’m aware that it’s a civil suit and the test becomes ‘on the balance of probability’ rather than ‘beyond reasonably doubt’. OJS was a high profile case, but if you allow a civil suit for that, why not allow it for cases like shoplifting? [/QUOTE] IANAL, but a few thoughts… - Probably not double jeopardy because it’s not the same jeopardy. If you’re convicted of a felony, you get sentenced. If you lose a civil suit, then usually you just have to pay in money. Not really the same deal. - If there’s a civil tort on the books that would apply in a shoplifting case, then it’s allowed. Quite possibly there is, but I imagine that the wronged party seldom wants to pay its own court costs to bring suit on a case like that. Notice that while the state prosecutes criminal offenses, the government seldom presses civil suits in the same kind of situations. IIRC it was Nicole’s family who sued OJ for wrongful death. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/3 "2008-04-28T11:14:42Z")
A regular lawyer will be along shortly but to make it short and sweet the double jeopardy doesn’t fall into play with the OJ case. Civil lawsuits have a different level of evidentiary requirement, less stringent so they felt that they could at least get some sort of financial recompense if they coudnt get him in jail. I think that [CrimeLibrary.com](http://CrimeLibrary.com) covers this. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/4 "2008-04-28T12:09:00Z")
[QUOTE=aruvqan] Civil lawsuits have a different level of evidentiary requirement, less stringent so they felt that they could at least get some sort of financial recompense if they coudnt get him in jail. [/QUOTE] Well yes, but why is this allowed? If you get prosecuted for murder and are found Not Guilty, you can’t be later prosecuted for manslaughter of the same person. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/5 "2008-04-28T12:32:42Z")
Criminal trials are “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” The jurers must believe 100% that the defendant did it. Civil trials are “by a perponderence of the evidence.” The jurers can think that most of the evidence says the defendant did it, so they are probably guilty. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/6 "2008-04-28T12:39:16Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] Well yes, but why is this allowed? If you get prosecuted for murder and are found Not Guilty, you can’t be later prosecuted for manslaughter of the same person. [/QUOTE] A civil suit is not a prosecution. The state is not involved in making the suit (though they provide the mechanism to decide it). Also you will not be put in jail if you lose and are thus not put into “jeopardy of life and limb” as the constitution forbids. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/7 "2008-04-28T12:54:10Z")
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas] Criminal trials are “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” The jurers must believe 100% that the defendant did it. [/QUOTE] Beyond a _reasonable_ doubt. I dunno where this “shadow of a doubt” idea came from but it always seems to rear its head in criminal law threads. ---
**Author:** ![Rube\_E.Tewesday](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f0a364/32.png) [@Rube\_E.Tewesday](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rube_E.Tewesday)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/8 "2008-04-28T12:54:39Z")
This staff report of [Bricker’s](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mjeopardy.htm) may be of some interest. Anyway, the basic answer is that the criminal justice system and the civil justice system have different purposes, even when they are dealing with the same set of facts. One is to punish criminals in the interest of protecting society, one is to compensate people who have suffered a personal loss. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/9 "2008-04-28T12:55:34Z")
[QUOTE=friedo] Beyond a _reasonable_ doubt. I dunno where this “shadow of a doubt” idea came from but it always seems to rear its head in criminal law threads. [/QUOTE] I blame [Alfred Hitchcock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_a_Doubt). ---
**Author:** ![El\_Zagna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d2c977/32.png) [@El\_Zagna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Zagna)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/10 "2008-04-28T13:01:32Z")
Does double jeopardy even apply in civil cases? If I sue someone and lose, but sometime later evidence is discovered making my case rock solid, can I “resue”? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/11 "2008-04-28T13:06:51Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] Well yes, but why is this allowed? If you get prosecuted for murder and are found Not Guilty, you can’t be later prosecuted for manslaughter of the same person. [/QUOTE] No, but you can get prosecuted by the feds for ‘violating the civil rights’ of the deceased. In essence they’re prosecuting you twice for the same crime, but using the neat trick of a different prosecuting authority. The Man will always get you in the end, by hook or by crook. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/12 "2008-04-28T13:22:48Z")
[QUOTE=El Zagna] Does double jeopardy even apply in civil cases? If I sue someone and lose, but sometime later evidence is discovered making my case rock solid, can I “resue”? [/QUOTE] The circumstances under which one can get a new trial or relief from a judgment based on newly discovered evidence are very limited: > [@](#): > > Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment > (a) In General. > > (1) Grounds for New Trial. > > The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues — and to any party — as follows: > > (A) after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court; or > > (B) after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court. > > (2) Further Action After a Nonjury Trial. > > After a nonjury trial, the court may, on motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment. > (b) Time to File a Motion for a New Trial. > > **A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of judgment.** > (c) Time to Serve Affidavits. > > When a motion for a new trial is based on affidavits, they must be filed with the motion. The opposing party has 10 days after being served to file opposing affidavits; but that period may be extended for up to 20 days, either by the court for good cause or by the parties’ stipulation. The court may permit reply affidavits. > (d) New Trial on the Court’s Initiative or for Reasons Not in the Motion. > > No later than 10 days after the entry of judgment, the court, on its own, may order a new trial for any reason that would justify granting one on a party’s motion. After giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court may grant a timely motion for a new trial for a reason not stated in the motion. In either event, the court must specify the reasons in its order. > (e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. > > A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment. [Rule 59. New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule59.htm) > [@](#): > > Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order > (a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. > > The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court’s leave. > (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. > > On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: > > (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; > > **(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);** > > (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; > > (4) the judgment is void; > > (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or > > (6) any other reason that justifies relief. > (c) Timing and Effect of the Motion. > > (1) Timing. > > \*\*A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time — and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. > \*\* > (2) Effect on Finality. > > The motion does not affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation. > (d) Other Powers to Grant Relief. > > This rule does not limit a court’s power to: > > (1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding; > > (2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action; or > > (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. > (e) Bills and Writs Abolished. > > The following are abolished: bills of review, bills in the nature of bills of review, and writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, and audita querela. [Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute](http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule60.htm) and see [Can civil judgments be reversed?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=280263) ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/13 "2008-04-28T13:25:01Z")
[QUOTE=friedo] Beyond a _reasonable_ doubt. I dunno where this “shadow of a doubt” idea came from but it always seems to rear its head in criminal law threads. [/QUOTE] From the acquittal of the police officers in the Sean Bell trial that is in the news lately. Which is probably why so many people misunderstood the acquittal. That case will end up with a civil trial. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/14 "2008-04-28T13:36:03Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] In several cases in America - OJ Simpson being the most prominent - people have been successfully sued after being found Not Guilty. Why is this allowed? Surely it violates the principle of Double Jeopardy? [/QUOTE] If Double Jeopardy barred suit when the defendant was acquitted, it would equally do so when the defendant was convicted. “double jeopardy is precluded by the Fifth Amendment whether the verdict was an acquittal or a conviction.” Helvering v. Mitchell, [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=303&page=397](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=303&page=397) What you are looking for are concepts like res judicata and collateral estoppel. Those don’t apply because of the differing standards of proof in civil and criminal cases. _Id._ (res judicata); [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=465&invol=354](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=465&invol=354) (collateral estoppel) ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/15 "2008-04-28T14:16:07Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] If Double Jeopardy barred suit when the defendant was acquitted, it would equally do so when the defendant was convicted. “double jeopardy is precluded by the Fifth Amendment whether the verdict was an acquittal or a conviction.” Helvering v. Mitchell, [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=303&page=397](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=303&page=397) [/quote] Indeed. I don’t see what’s wrong with that: the convicted defendant has already been punished by the state. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/16 "2008-04-28T14:23:30Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] Well yes, but why is this allowed? If you get prosecuted for murder and are found Not Guilty, you can’t be later prosecuted for manslaughter of the same person. [/QUOTE] It’s allowed because even if you are not guilty of a crime, if you have done something that has harmed someone else, then that person should be allowed to seek compensation. Criminal proceedings are for punishing a person who has committed a crime. Civil proceedings are for compensating someone who has been harmed. An acquittal in a criminal proceeding only says “we have not proved that you have committed a crime.” It does not say “we have proved that you have not harmed someone.” ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/17 "2008-04-28T14:26:50Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] Indeed. I don’t see what’s wrong with that: the convicted defendant has already been punished by the state. [/QUOTE] But his victim has not been compensated. Tort law is about compensating those who have been harmed, not punishment (punitive damages present a more complicated problem). In effect, you’d insulate those who commit the worst (most culpable) civil harms from financial responsibility for their acts. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/18 "2008-04-28T16:27:07Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] Well yes, but why is this allowed? If you get prosecuted for murder and are found Not Guilty, you can’t be later prosecuted for manslaughter of the same person. [/QUOTE] You can by a different sovereign. That is why Sharpton is correct (that’s a hard phrase to type) in suggesting that a federal indictment for the S. Bell cops would not be impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/19 "2008-04-28T16:33:25Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] But his victim has not been compensated. Tort law is about compensating those who have been harmed, not punishment (punitive damages present a more complicated problem). In effect, you’d insulate those who commit the worst (most culpable) civil harms from financial responsibility for their acts. [/QUOTE] So you’d be happy if every criminal trial were followed by a civil trial? If Joe Bloggs is convicted for shoplifting and sent down, the store should sue him for restitution? And what if Joe is found Not Guilty? Should he still be sued? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201/20 "2008-04-28T16:52:51Z")
[QUOTE=Quartz] So you’d be happy if every criminal trial were followed by a civil trial? If Joe Bloggs is convicted for shoplifting and sent down, the store should sue him for restitution? And what if Joe is found Not Guilty? Should he still be sued? [/QUOTE] You ask as if it’s a novel circumstance. In every shoplifting case, the merchant has to decide whether to bring civil charges. Usually, the amount is too trivial to bother with a civil action. In most cases in which a shoplifter has been caught, the merchandise has been recovered anyway. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-being-sued-after-being-fouind-not-guilty/447201.md?page=2)