Robert Blake not guilty, but he is liable

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

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 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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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.

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."