Robert Blake not guilty, but he is liable
 

While Robert Blake might have been found not guilty in the murder of Bonnie Lee Bakley, but he is liable for her death which it turns out was worth $30 million.

And that's the name of that tune!

Is this O.J. II?


(speaking of which, did they ever collect a dime from O.J.?)

I've never really understood the logic, though I understand the legality of it, of someone who is found not guilty of a crime being ifinancially liable for the results of the crime. Not that I shed a tear for either OJ or Blake, but it just seems odd to me.

Yeah, kind of a dirty way to get around double jeopardy, imo.

Strange...I agree as well.

Hmm, maybe I should schedule a doctor's appointment.


;)

Not to mention that the burden of proof is far less in this type of trial. It seems to me that having an identical set of standards would be ideal ... but what do I know?

I've never liked it, and would prefer that civil reparations were somehow rolled into criminal trials (I know that in some countries, victim restitution is part of the criminal sentence where we keep them completely separate).

Unless the civil trial offers a differing theory of liability than the criminal trial, I think it should be barred. I also don't like trials in different jurisdictions stemming from the same criminal action (such as in the Rodney King cops being acquitted and then tried in federal court for the same act, though a different charge).

I suppose if the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard were used for civil claims it might be too difficult for plaintiffs to prove valid claims. On the other hand, one wants the highest standard in criminal cases.

I'm sort of torn. On the one hand, it seems like double-dipping. On the other hand, this is one of the quirks of our system. If the prosecution thinks someone's guilty and can't get them on the "real" charge, they go for plan B: tax fraud, perjury, liability.

Remember, in a criminal trial you can be found either Guilty or Not Guilty.


You cannot be found Innocent.



There is a deep acknowledgment in criminal law that people can be acquitted of crimes they have in fact committed.




I think the current double jeopardy restrictions are protection enough.

That's how they got Capone (and many organized crime types), but this example (and OJ) is different - this is individuals pressing liability charges.

Legal eagles here can give the facts, but if I recall correctly, the burden of proof is much different in a civil trial than it is in criminal trial. To win a civil trial, one only needs to have a preponderance of evidence (eg; more than 50%) whereas in a criminal trial, the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Taking it a step further, to get awarded punitive damages, one needs to show "clear and convincing" evidence - somewhere between "preponderance" and "beyond a reasonable doubt."

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.