Robert Blake Found Liable?

[ViRGE]

Alright, perhaps the AT P&N legal scholars can help me out here. Now Robert Blake was found innocent in his criminal trial over his wife's murder, but was found guilty in the civil trial over the same thing. Now I understand the difference between a civil and criminal trial, and the lower bar for conviction in a civil court, but I guess I don't get how he can still be tried in two separate courts without violating the double-jeopardy clause.

So I suppose the question is this: what legal background/theory allows someone to be tried in a civil court after being found innocent in a criminal court? It seems to me that being found innocent in a criminal matter should be overriding here.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

same as OJ

I believe he is being tried for different things...one is a criminal matter- Murder
the other being a civil matter- that he was responsible for death

here u go-

Because criminal and civil courts express distinct paradigms of law, the two trials are not deemed to constitute double jeopardy.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408f.asp

 

[Harvey]

The legal standard for criminal liablitiy is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The standard for civil liability is essentially "more likely than not."

 

[Jediab]

Some legal people will say there is a difference bwteen "Not Guilty"and "Innocent".

Not Guilty just means the state could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person(s) on trial commited the listed crimes they were being charged for.

Innocent would mean more along the lines of the charges were droped for a reason other than lack of evidence.

But I am far from a legal expert, so I could be way off.

 

[IdaGno]

another reason we sometimes root for the terrorists - our totally effed up legal system

GL! w/all of that, Iraq

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
same as OJ

I believe he is being tried for different things...one is a criminal matter- Murder
the other being a civil matter- that he was responsible for death

here u go-

Because criminal and civil courts express distinct paradigms of law, the two trials are not deemed to constitute double jeopardy.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408f.asp

Thanks for the insightful link, it's a good explanation of how the criminal/civil setup works. Am I however the only person that finds this standard unfair? In these cases, there can only really be two truths, either someone committed an offense or they didn't; it can't be both at the same time. I mean, is there a good reason why we allow this, the FFF article didn't really provide a good explanation on that.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: MrDingleDangle
same as OJ

I believe he is being tried for different things...one is a criminal matter- Murder
the other being a civil matter- that he was responsible for death

here u go-

Because criminal and civil courts express distinct paradigms of law, the two trials are not deemed to constitute double jeopardy.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408f.asp

Thanks for the insightful link, it's a good explanation of how the criminal/civil setup works. Am I however the only person that finds this standard unfair? In these cases, there can only really be two truths, either someone committed an offense or they didn't; it can't be both at the same time. I mean, is there a good reason why we allow this, the FFF article didn't really provide a good explanation on that.

Its perfectly sensible to have two systems as they are both judging different things and apply different punishments (actually a civil court decision often isn't a punishment, its just making restitution to someone you wronged). Lets take an easier example.

I'm screwing around with my gun and accidently kill someone. I'm charged with murder, but acquitted because the jury finds I didn't mean to. Maybe the state tried something even lower, like negligent homocide, but the jury still didn't buy it. However, no one doubts that I actually did hte act and killed someone, and his wife sues for wrongful death. That doesn't really seem like something we should be stopping, and the criminal acquittal doesn't really seem to have any bearing on whether or not I should be liable in a wrongful death suit.

 

[judasmachine]

so you can get screwed in civil court for just being the prime suspect?

/confused

 

[MrDingleDangle]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
so you can get screwed in civil court for just being the prime suspect?

/confused

well im not sure in both these cases there was overwhelming evidence against the defendent, but something in the case made the sure believe that there was a doubt in the criminal case

if the glove doesnt fit you must aquite(sp?)

and in the robert blake people testified that they asked him to murder his wife, but these people the jury felt were untrustworthy drugdealers (like you would ask someone trustworthy)...but in the civil case it doesnt have to be without any question that they did it

i dont know the reasons for the lesser standards in civil case, but i would guess its because there is no jail time...you might lose some money, but you dont go to jail and you still can get jobs (i believe most applications say have you been convicted of a crime) which is a criminal case

 

[compuwiz1]

Whatever. The guy is 70 something and gonna die soon anyway. Civil court is much easier to convict in, anyway. I'm sure he's gonna snap right into making those payments too, just like O.J. did.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
so you can get screwed in civil court for just being the prime suspect?

/confused

I don't think the system "screws" the prime suspect. You get screwed in criminal courts if you have bad lawyers or happen to kill a white person. You probably get excessive leniency in the criminal courts if you have very good legal representation or happen to kill someone that's not white.

In the civil system, it's arguable that the system is more biased towards the plaintiff but it's not a slam dunk. The plaintiff still must provide good reason to believe the defendant has some degree of culpability. If you are "innocent" a good lawyer will get you off. If you are "sorta guilty", you will get what you deserve.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: judasmachine
so you can get screwed in civil court for just being the prime suspect?

/confused

I don't think the system "screws" the prime suspect. You get screwed in criminal courts if you have bad lawyers or happen to kill a white person. You probably get excessive leniency in the criminal courts if you have very good legal representation or happen to kill someone that's not white.

In the civil system, it's arguable that the system is more biased towards the plaintiff but it's not a slam dunk. The plaintiff still must provide good reason to believe the defendant has some degree of culpability. If you are "innocent" a good lawyer will get you off. If you are "sorta guilty", you will get what you deserve.

Thanks! You said it way more articulately than I could have.

 

[judasmachine]

Yeah I know it still takes pretty incriminating evidence, but it sounds a bit scary. I'm also not saying Blake or OJ are innocent, I'm just curious as I really don't know much about the civil court system outside of small claims.

 

[techs]

Wasn't there a famous case where someone was convicted of giving a bribe to a person who was found not guilty of accepting it?

 

[OrganizedChaos]

civil suits only require to be 51% sure he did it. criminal suits require the jury to be 95%+ sure he did it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Yeah I know it still takes pretty incriminating evidence, but it sounds a bit scary. I'm also not saying Blake or OJ are innocent, I'm just curious as I really don't know much about the civil court system outside of small claims.

Trust me . . . few people would be so foul as to accuse you of claiming Blake and OJ are innocent. The criminal system is fundamentally unfair in that the quality of your legal representation has a tremendous effect on the outcome. The requirement for unanimous decisions should favor the innocent but in fact it only favors the innocent with adequate representation.

The civil system removes the wealth effect. All it takes is a little guilt to get 7 of 12 people to say you have some degree of liability. Now Bill Gates . . . or even Oprah-money might still get off but you better put on a better show than Blake did at his trial.

The jurors appear to be saying that he basically implicated himself on the witness stand. I haven't read references to actual evidence but they clearly thought he was an arsehole.