I think the requirements for punitive damages varies between jurisdictions and specific claims.

Of course, until you are found guilty, you are presumed to be innocent. Thus the question for the jury is not whether you are guilty or innocent but simply whether or not you are guilty, because until they make that determination you are innocent.

I understand the arguments for why state/federal prosecutions for the same act are not considered double jeopardy (separate sovereigns, preventing malicious immunization) and why criminal/civil are not (different parties, lack of "physical" jeopardy in a civil trial). But I still think it is stupid that one can be held liable for a act that one, legally, did not commit (and especially stupid if, in fact, one did not actually commit the act). Since just as guilty people can be acquitted, innocent people can be charged.