Minor nit picked:
Res judicata bars relitigation of issues. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of claims.
- Rick
This question points up an interesting difference between the principles underlying civil and criminal law.
The principle underlying our criminal legal system is that no one can be convicted of a crime unless it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime. Another principle is that no one can be tried mulitple times for the same offense. (This is to protect you from, among other things, the government simply retrying you, and rejailing you, every few years for the same original offense.)
The principle underlying our civil legal system is that we need to resolve disputes and once they are properly resolved, the resolution needs to be final. There is some wiggle room in the word “properly,” because if it turns out (ever) that the Court deciding the case did not have jurisdiction then the decision is void. Furthermore, if it turns out that the Judge was bribed, or someone committed fraud on the Court, then those are additional reasons for setting aside a judgment. But even as to these claims there is a time limit.
Another way to say it is that, in principle at least, the deck is stacked in favor of a criminal defendant.
But in a civil case, there is, again in principle, not supposed to be a bias in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant. And, as noted in previous posts, in a civil case, we don’t want the loser running back to Court every 3 months with allegedly brand new evidence that shows they should have won the first time.
So, if you are wrongfully convicted of a crime, and evidence comes up 20 years later showing that you are not “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” then there is a judicial mechansim for releasing you. This can be a federal habeas petition, but there are also procedures under state law (including a state habeas petition).
If you are wrongfully acquitted of a crime, and evidence comes in even one hour later showing that you are “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” then you lucked out. There is no retrial because you cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Note that the principles here are stacked in favor of the defendant by design. (again in practice, there is a lot about the system that is arguably stacked against the defendant: I’m just talking about these over arching principles governing when and how a decision can be reviewed.)
In a civil case, as was noted in previous posts, the purpose is to get the matter resolved. If EITHER SIDE tries to bring in new evidence saying they should have won, they can’t do it. The case is closed: res judicata: “the thing decided.”
You can dream up hypotheticals that make this sound like a harsh rule: the widow discovers the letter proving her case after the evil landlord has screwed her out of her farm , etc. But consider the alternative: cases would never end if the loser can keep coming back with new evidence.
Standard Obligatory Disclaimer: By posting to this thread, I am not offering legal advice to you or to anyone else on this or any other topic. If your interest in this thread is based on anything other than idle curiosity, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. I am not your lawyer. You are not my client.
Constantine
DN:
Let’s take the recent Tommy Lee case, where a child drowned in his pool at a party, and go totally hypothetical:
The police believe that Tommy actually held the child under the water until he expired. They charge him in a criminal case with murder. The jury finds him not guilty.
BUT…
The parents of the dead child still blame Tommy for his negligence in having such a no-lifeguard party, and sue him for wrongful death in a civil case. The outcome of that case, as you can imagine, might be totally unrelated to whether or not Tommy held the child under the water himself or not.
If he’s acquitted in a criminal trial, it’s because the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he’s guilty – a high standard of proof, necessary because criminal defendants can be sent to jail (or even killed).
A civil trial involves relatively little risk - it’s only money. A civil trial determines, by a mere preponderance of evidence, whether the defendant has harmed the plaintiff. It’s very different from the criminal trial, and the judgement in one really doesn’t meet the standards of the other.
Tsk, tsk. I’m sorry, counselor, but duty dictates that I report your flagrant ethical violation to your bar association.
So, how, he was not actually the killer, was O.J. responsible for the deaths? I don’t understand that. He did not prevent the murders? Hell, Ron Goldman’s dad is responsible for not teaching his son to mess around with O.J.'s “woman”.
He wasn’t criminally convicted of murder; the state couldn’t convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ committed the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
He was civilly liable for wrongful death; the Goldman and Brown family convinced a jury by a preponderance of the evidence (that it was more likely than not) that he was responsible for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman.
Here are the questions the jury was asked to decide in the civil trial:
Here are the questions the jury was asked to decide in the civil trial:
I still don’t understand how, if those questions the jury answered to the affirmative can be true, that he could have gotten off criminally.
Here’s my take:
“Criminal Jury: We can’t prove he did it.”
“Civil Jury: But he did it anyway.”
Do you think, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Bush acted impoperly by giving Haliburton an open-ended multi-billion dollar contract in a closed-door session without allowing any other bidders?
Do you think, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bush acted impoperly by giving Haliburton an open-ended multi-billion dollar contract in a closed-door session without allowing any other bidders?
See the difference? You might be able to convince yourself that there is a 51% chance that Bush is corrupt, but you might still have reasonable doubts.
My take would be a slight variation on these:
Criminal Jury: the state did not meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, that he committed the crime. SO… the state cannot punish him by sending him to jail.
Civil Jury: the plaintiffs met their burden of proving that it’s more likely than not that he did it. SO… the plaintiffs are entitled to a money judgment.
Whenever a defenant falls in the gray area between (1) we are absolutely sure he did it, and (2) we can’t say for sure, but we think it’s more likely than not that he DID do it, then you get a situation where the defendant would NOT be criminally liable, but would be civilly liable.
Constantine
So let me get this straight, Let say I get accused of killing some people but am not convicted, their families can sue me in a civil trial- ok I am with this so far- and they win. So I have to shell out my millions.
2 years later they find a video tape of whoever killed the people, Therefore proving I did not do it, had nothing to do with it. The people who got my money still get to keep it anyway, just because there was a chance I did have something to do with it?
Now I know I know Nothing about the law, and Pencil Pushers analogy went WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over my head, I don’t even know who haliburton is, But that seems really F’d up to me.
Another Hijack…
What if there were a civil judgement against me and the VERY NEXT DAY such a video tape were discovered and no money had changed hands yet?
Sorry about being obscure, I was referring to the events described here http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/09/news/companies/halliburton_contract/index.htm , which we cannot talk about in this forum (feel free to start a thread in GD, though). It was just the first example I thought of involving recent events.
Anyway, glancing at section 7 of the rules of civil procedure ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/overview.htm#chapter_vii )
shows some possible outs. Now, I’m sure some other posters who have actualy knowledge of how those rules were handled in the courts will correct me, but it appears that if you can convince a judge that justice really was not served, she has the power to set aside the judgement.
Doing a quick google search led me to this case ( http://www.ballew.com/bob/htm/990930.htm ) which said:
So, you have one year after judgement to present new evidence, then you need to show that a gross injustice has occured.
BTW, if you find the evidence the next day (in Cyberhwk’s hypo), rule 59 would apply, and you can simply request a new trial.
If it’s any consolation, OJ’s STILL looking for the real killer on golf courses around the country now.
True, you can’t force them to give the money back to you, because of the res judicata principle that’s been discussed here.
But you do have another option for recovering your money. You can sue the real killer in civil court, saying that he is the person at fault for starting this whole mess, and therefore he is responsible for the money you had to pay out. And you’d very likely win this civil lawsuit, especially if there was solid proof that he was the real murderer.
Of course, then you’d have to collect the money. If he is, like most murderers, rather poor, your chances of collecting might not be good. (I believe I read that OJ has only paid a small part of the $8.5 million he owes from the civil suit. And half goes to his wife’s estate, which by her will goes to their kids anyway. And until they are 18, he as their father controls their finances. So he sort of pays the money back to himself!)
Here’s a thought, though…what would happen if a videotape surfaces that showed OJ was guilty? I don’t suppose there’s much that could be done legally, double jeopardy and all that. But it makes you wonder what the public reaction would be…
Bear in mind that there was additional evidence at the civil trial that the jury at the criminal trial never got.
The police evidence at the criminal jury was that there was a bloody footprint at the crime scene, that did not come from either of the victims’ shoes. They were able to show that the print had been made by a particular brand of Italian shoes.
At the criminal trial, OJ was asked if he had ever had that type of shoes, and he categorically denied it.
Fast forward to the civil trial, a year or two later. A sports photographer has come forward in the interval. After reading about the shoe thing, he went back through his personal archives and checked a roll of film that he shot at a football game, where OJ was appearing on the field at half time for some award or other… and the pictures showed OJ was wearing a pair of the type of shoes in question. So not only could OJ no longer deny that he had a pair of those shoes, but his earlier categorical denial at the criminal trial counted against his credibility in the civil trial.
Now, the discovery of those photos didn’t affect the criminal acquittal, because of double jeopardy, but it meant that the civil jury had different evidence than the criminal jury had had, which may have contributed to the different result.
At the criminal trial OJ was asked etc…He was? He never testified.
The damages were $35 million,not $8.5. Also I personally know a relative of the late Ron- his family has gotten zero.
OJ did attempt ,not sure when, to have Judge Ito make a finding of factual innocence-Ito declined. I’ll let others define factual innocence-too long to define.