[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Without any theatrics or drama, may I ask a simple question? I know some of you are lawyers. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? If you are found guilty or not guilty, should that not be the end of it? When did it become acceptable to have a criminal AND a civil trial? Has that always been the case? First time I saw this was with OJ.

There is no double jeopardy posed by having to face both a criminal and civil trial-- never has been. One can deprive of you of your liberty and the other of your property. As the former is far more serious, it requires the higher burden of proof-- beyond a reasonable doubt. Note that the jury is not instructed on "innocence", but is instead asked to find a defendant either guilty or not guilty. That is not just a question of semantics, and the difference is intentional.

You also can be tried for the same crime in multiple jurisdictions--technically not the same statute being violated but the same underlying actions comprising a violation of law in two different sovereigns, e.g., both state and federal law. I would defer to the criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors on the board to expound on this if anyone is interested.

It hasn't happened a lot, but now and then in my practice I have a civil case where the defendant was also charged with a crime arising out of the same event. Picture a drunk driving case causing injury, for example. If the defendant is convicted, the plaintiff in the civil case is pretty much home free, since there was a finding that defendant did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If he is found not guilty, the civil client/victim can still proceed because he only needs to show the defendant more likely than not was acting in a culpable manner. Plaintiff still needs to prove his case, but he is not precluded by some argument of double jeopardy because that defense would be inapplicable.