Example: OJ was acquitted of murder (criminal trial) yet he was convicted of wrongful death (or something, anyhow – he wasn’t found “not guilty”) for the same offense in a civil trial. Why doesn’t a civil suit count against double indemnity? What’s the diff?
(Yeah, I’ve got an idea what the difference is, but it’s a really vague, nebulous idea.)
~~Baloo
In civil law, the damaged party brings suit for damages (reperations). In criminal law, the State takes the role of the damaged party and prosecutes for penalties under law. There are rights for the accused in criminal law (like the Miranda rights) that do not exist in civil law, because the State has the power to incarcerate and, in some states, put to death those who lose the trial. In criminal law, the emphasis is on guilty or not guilty (innocence is presumed), in civil law the emphasis is on the amount of damages paid, if any. That is the gist of it. Someone like Sua Sponte will have to fill in details. IANAL.
In the criminal case, it was the State of California vs OJ Simpson. Simpson violated a California State law so they prosecuted him, albeit unsuccessfully.
Civil law involves torts, or damages to other people. If you scratch my car in the parking lot, or if you have caused some other damage to me or my person and I would take you to civil court to recover the damages. Causing a wrongful death is just a tort. Well, it’s pretty much the most severe there is. In the OJ civil trial, the parents (or some other relative on the behalf of Nicole I assume, not sure specifically of whom) SUED OJ Simpson for causing the wrongful death of their daughter. He could not go to jail for this. All he could do is is be made to pay a lot of money. Civil trials are what you see on Judge Judy, Judge Mills Lane etc. None of the defendants risk going to jail, and none of them are being prosecuted by the State.
Also, one important factor on why he was found guilty in the civil trial and not the criminal one: In a criminal trial the defendant is guilty if there is no reasonable doubt otherwise (which means he most certainly did it), but in a civil trial the plaintiff only needs to show a propinderance of the evidence (which means it is more likely than not that he did it.
So besides the fact that he did do it, the reason he was guilty in the civil but not the criminal is because there was only a proponderance of evidence- the evidence did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil trials are the danger in lawful self defense. If someone breaks into my house and I kill him in self defense, I do not need to worry about being arrested or going through a criminal trial. However, I would almost certainly be taken to civil court by the robbers parents for causing the wrongful death of their son. I hope to god they won’t win 
Derleth brings up a good point. In civil law you can be found 50% or 75% or any other percent responsible and only have to pay that percent of the requested damages. Say if I accidentally drop a piano on your prized African poodle and you sue me for 100,000 dollars. The judge (or jury) finds that you were 30 percent at fault for not having her on a leash, and I was 70 percent at fault because I did not properly secure my piano during the move. I would have to pay 70,000 dollars. In criminal law you cannot be half guilty and serve 10 years instead of 20.
Ok. First I think you mean “double jeopardy,” not double indemnity. It’s not double jeopardy when the allegations are different. When the officers were acquitted in California State Court in the Rodney King case, the U.S. government brought civil rights violation charges against the officers. To make matters even more confusing, federal “civil” rights violations are “criminal” offenses. So the State of California charged the officers with assaulting King, but the civil rights violations are more on the order of Mr. King had the right to not be assaulted but he was. There have been many scholarly articles on this subject and I welcome any correction or clarification…
Everything IIRC. I only took one law course, so I don’t consider myself an authority.
The main distinction between civil and criminal trials is that civil trials deal with private wrongs (torts), while criminal trials deal with public wrongs (crimes). Any citizen may file a lawsuit for any tort, as is their right, but only the government may prosecute crimes. The only way a private citizen can normally intercede in a crime is with a citizen’s arrest (a different subject entirely; I won’t hijack). Furthermore, it’s up to the wronged citizen to take the initiative in filing a lawsuit. If he or she feels that the tort isn’t serious enough to warrant a lawsuit, or wishes to settle the dispute out of court (which is almost always preferable, BTW), that’s fine. A crime, on the other hand, must be prosecuted, as the state has a civic duty to do so even if no one objects to it. All in theory of course, and don’t bother to regale me with the failings of law enforcement; I already know.
As far as burden of proof goes, all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Since being convicted of a crime is so serious, there must be strong enough evidence before that verdict can be rendered. A lawsuit, on the other hand, is a dispute between citizens, who are equal in the eyes of the law, so neither party has the burden of proof. Hence, preponderance of evidence.
As for double jeopardy, this protects against someone being tried twice for the same crime in the same court. It’s perfectly acceptable for a higher court to render a different verdict…this is exactly what appellate courts are for. And anyone can get sued at any time regardless or whether or not he/she was convicted. Suing for wrongful death in a suspected murder is unusual, but completely acceptable.
Note that while anyone can attempt to initiate a lawsuit, there has to be some actual harm done, or else the court will simply throw the case out. That’s why I never worry about “frivolous lawsuits”. If the charges are really frivolous, they don’t become lawsuits at all.
Nitpick: In a civil suit, you are not found guilty, you are found liable.
The jury determined that the Juice was liable for causing the wrongfull death of the victim.
Slight nitpick: the plaintiff has the burden of proof in a civil trial, just as the state does in a criminal trial. The key is what burden of proof they carry. Preponderence of the evidence is often stated as, “More likely than not.” Reasonable doubt is sometimes expianed as, “When the evidence excludes all reasonable hypotheses other than guilt.” In other words, the state in a criminal trial has a much higher standard of proof, but the plaintiff in a civil trial must still prove his case.
[quote]
As for double jeopardy, this protects against someone being tried twice for the same crime in the same court. It’s perfectly acceptable for a higher court to render a different verdict…this is exactly what appellate courts are for. And anyone can get sued at any time regardless or whether or not he/she was convicted. Suing for wrongful death in a suspected murder is unusual, but completely acceptable.
[quote]
There is, interestingly enough, a pair of civil concepts that parallel the criminal protection against double jeopardy: collateral estoppel and res judicata. The latter is a bar against religating the same civil claim after a final decision has been reached; the former, a bar against relitigating the same issue in the same or a different civil claim.
In general, apellate courts don’t themselves render verdicts. They affirm or reverse the verdicts from the trial court.
The problem is that every lawsuit must be answered, or you risk a judgement against you on the affadavit of the plaintiff. And answering even a moderately simple claim by saying that it should be dismissed on summary judgement, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Rule 56 or 10(b)(6), respectively) requires a lawyer’s time - which does cost money.
Bricker - Thanks for the clarifications.
IIRC again, an appellate court reviews all the evidence presented in the lower court but does not introduce any new evidence or conduct any court proceedings. Its only purpose is to support or overturn the verdict. Someone had this wonderful quote…“An appeal is when you request one court to show its contempt for another.”
Note that the appeals process is expensive (the legal fees alone can easily run into seven figres), so it’s not a decision to be made lightly.
This is correct. The lowwer court’s findings of fact are accepted as correct, as long as there is support in the record for them; the lower court’s decisions of law are reviewed de novo - that is, anew. The appeals court reviews the law and its applications to the facts established by the trial court.
There are exceptions to this general policy. In Virginia, for example, we have General District Courts, which are courts of original jurisdiction for misdemeanors. A person convcisted by a district court has an appeal as of right to the circuit court, which is the court of original jurisdiction for felonies. Appeal as of right means you need show no grounds for appeal, identify no errors made in your trial. You simply must request the appeal. When you do, your conviction in district court is voided, and you receive a trial de novo in circuit court. The entire trial is conducted again, and to appeal for there to the Virginia Court of Appeals, you must identify errors made by the circuit court.
KINGRAT said:
When the officers were acquitted in California State Court in the Rodney King case, the U.S. government brought civil rights violation charges against the officers. To make matters even more confusing, federal “civil” rights violations are “criminal” offenses. So the State of California charged the officers with assaulting King, but the civil rights violations are more on the order of Mr. King had the right to not be assaulted but he was. There have been many scholarly articles on this subject and I welcome any correction or clarification…
This is called the issue of “dual sovereignty”. Both the US and the individual states are sovereigns, per the constitution, although by ratifying the Constitution the individual states cede part of their sovereignty to the “federal government”, which in theory expresses the will of the entire nation. (This is, of course, an extreme oversimplification).
Under the principles of dual sovereignty the Feds and the State can independently prosecute you for the same occurrence, which would otherwise be double jeopardy. This is because each prosecution comes from a seperate and independent source of authority. Now, IAAL, but I may be wrong on this – two states can’t prosecute for the same offense, but this is presumably because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, notwithstanding the fact that both States are seperate sovereigns.
Altho it may have been implied in prior posts, “double jeopardy” only applies to criminal cases.
“nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”
The Const. says “offense” and in jeopardy of “life and limb,” which “limb” has been interpreted as meaning imprisonment.
Moreover, an appellate court may take action on a “guilty” defendant, but not one found “not guilty.” The prosecutor cannot appeal a case in which the defendant was found “not guilty.” That’s why cases which are not strong are not brought to trial until they are made better.
There have been scholarly articles on a state trying a person and then the fedl gvt trying the same person on the same set of facts. Courts have said that that is not double jeopardy since the crimes are different: one against the state and the other against the fedl gvt. I find that concept hard to accept.
Actually, although I am a civil lawyer and not a criminal lawyer, I think that there may be a little nitpick here. Certainly if the Judge doesn’t make any rulings against the State, once the jury says “Not Guilty”, you’re free. But I had thought that at least some pre-trial rulings on the law might be appealable and subject the Defendant to a new trial, i.e. granting a motion to suppress or motion to dismiss part of an indictment. At the extreme, if the Judge directs an acquittal (i.e., finds after the close of the prosecution’s case that there is not enough evidence to go to the jury), one would think that an appeal would lie. Any help from the criminal lawyers out there?
I’m not a criminal lawyer. In fact, I don’t practice law at all. (I don’t need the practice. I’m already perfect.) But IIRC, John, you are right. However, I think it also depends upon the jurisdiction.
Once the jury returns an acquittal, any appeal by the government would be moot.
However, a ruling adverse to the prosecution can often be addressed by an interlocutory appeal – that is, an appeal taken up prior to a final judgement in the lower court.
This seldom happens, becuase the typical rulings fatal to the prosecution’s case occur as a result of pre-trial motions, before jeopardy attaches. So the COmmonwealth is free to appeal and, if they win, the prosecution’s back on track with no double jeopardy problems.
However, if the judge, for example, at the close of the prosecution’s case, rules as a matter of law that they have failed to make their case, and orders a dismissal, the defense may object or not. If the defense does not object, then double jeopardy is not implicated, because there has not been a final verdict, and the defense waived the “valued right” to have the case settled by the original jury. This is true for most cases of mistrial: if the defense requests a mistrial, or fails to object to the prosecution’s request for a mistrial, there is no double jeopardy bar to retrial. (One exception: if the defense is forced to ask for a mistrial because of egregious prosecutorial overreaching or goading, the double jeopardy bar will apply).
If the defense objects to the directed verdict, the judge would be very unlikely to issue the order. But assuming he did, and assuming the appeals court found him in error for the decision of law, then the defense could argue double jeopardy bars a retrial. I think the standard is “manifest necessity;” in the case described above, since defense objected and the judge went ahead… the most the apellate court could do was spank the trial judge for screwing up; there’s clearly no “manifest necessity” when the judge makes an error and the defense objects.