Double jeopardy: criminal and civil

[KillerMuffin]

This is something I find curious. I was thinking about Christopher Darden last night prior to going to sleep and then about OJ and then about Nicole's parents. And it got me to thinking some more.

It's against the constitution to be tried twice for the same crime, yet we do that more and more often in this country.

Like OJ. Johnny Cochran got his chance to shine and display his doggerel prowess "If the glove don't fit you must acquit!" Smart mnemonic aid. It's a catch phrase now.

Anyway. Once the jury of his peers acquitted him in his criminal trial, the parents and other assorted relatives of the victims put him through a civil trial where he was found guilty of murdering the two and forced to pay restitution.

So, it makes me think. Is this constitutionally legal? He was tried once and acquitted, then tried again for the exact same crime and found guilty. Is this right or wrong? Why?

 

[TWB]

Civil trials do not try a crime.

No double jeapordy.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Do they not? Then what was OJ's tried for on his civil trial?

 

[TWB]

The question was whether he was liable for money damages. No matter the outcome, he could not go to jail for it. The double Jeopardy provision applies to criminal cases: Double Jeopardy is:

[1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).


Also, just as an aside not having to do with Double Jeopardy:

The civil case they only had to prove that he was liable by a preponderance of the evidence: whether it was more likely or not that he caused her death.

The Criminal case they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Worm]

I'm more interested in how the hell a lawsuit gets filed by parents against McDonalds because your children are fat. Sounds to me like the Parents are the ones that should be getting sued

 

[TWB]

I think there is another thread about that.

 

[Lasher]

Anyway. Once the jury of his peers acquitted him in his criminal trial, the parents and other assorted relatives of the victims put him through a civil trial where he was found guilty of murdering the two and forced to pay restitution.

Check you facts, KM. Civial trials do not determine guilt - if I remember right the results of OJ's criminal trial were not even admissible as evidence in the civil trial.

The civil trial found that OJ was liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron Goldman.

Finally, your Constituion Buddy says the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment reads like this:

nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

The civil trial did neither, and does not violate OJ's 5th Amendment rights.

 

[KillerMuffin]

That's true, Lasher, but OJ still went before two courts of some sort regarding the exact same event. One aquitted him, one punished him. For the exact same event.

This is what I'm getting at, law as it's written aside. I'm not discussing law violation or consitutional violation. I'm discussin theory in practice.

 

[Guest]

Actually, OJ's psycho son did it.

 

[TWB]

The criminal case and the civil case are different.

The criminal case is the state attempting to make everyone conform to a certain set of rules (criminal laws).
The prosecutor brings this case.

The civil case is to try to get $$ for a violation of a particuar person's rights. (negligence or intentional torts).
The person's private lawyer brings this case.

The standards of proof are diffferent, and the outcome is different. One is guilt, the other liability.

THe event is the same, but the actions are different.

 

[curious2c]

my two cents worth.

While I think that OJ probably got away with murder, a jury in the courtroom decided otherwise. Since that jury felt justified in their verdict I have to reluctantly agree that he was innocent. Because of that I feel that the second trial for civil damages was not correct. How can you be aquited of a crime yet be liable for monetary damages? Doesn't make sense to me. In my own humble opinion...if aquited of a crime you should not be abel to be prosecuted in civil court for the cause or effects of that crime. Period. Kind of like being half pregnant. Either your are or you aren't.

I am not sure when our juris-prudence became so twisted n this country or maybe it always has been and it took a trial like this senstaional one to bring it out. A jury of his peers found him to be innocent...so if he didn't do the crime how can he be held responsible for something he didn't do?

I feel that it was wrong to allow him to be sued for monetary damages in the case of Nicole Simpson. One court says he did it and the other court says he is responsible for an ex-wife's death and must pay...doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Rusher]

Double Jeopardy is circumvented all the time

Look at the case of Jeffrey McDonald, the Marine convicted in federal court of murdering his wife and children (subject of the book Fatal Vision). He was acquitted by a military court, and by a state court. The federal government then brought charges and convicted him. Of murder? No, of violating the civil rights of the people he murdered by denying them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Prosecutors have used the civil rights laws passed in the 1960s to convict others in the same way. You can decide for yourself if you think this is an acceptable practice. On the one hand, the guilty are going to jail. On the other hand, you're using a law that was passed for a good reason in a way that it was never intended to be used. It seems to me it's being used to circumvent the rule of law.

 

[MissTaken]

A court of law

doesn't determine "innocence" in it's purist form.

As TWB stated, the degree to which the case must be proving to win varies in the two courts.

In criminal court, it must be proven "beyond a reasaonable doubt." That being the case, 99.9 percent of the evidence must indicate guilt. If only 79 percent of the evidence does so, the defendant is acquitted, which doesn't inidicate innonence.

In civil court, it must be proven "by preponderance of the evidence." That is to say, that 51 percent of the evidence must inidcate guilt. That doesn't necessarily mean that he did it.

Unclear enough? Nothing has really been proven.

The two cases differ in that in Criminal court, OJ was being presecuted for murder. Did he kill Nicole?-

In civil court, the question is, "Is it likely that OJ deprived the children of their mother?"

RE: Double jeopardy? It applies in criminal court.

The judicial system is divided as it is so as to better clarify the issues. Example:

Family Court may decide that a man has abused his children and the sentence is that the children go to foster care.

Should that be the end f the matter? Criminal court will decide punishment, while Family Court will decide for the children's best interests.

Civil court only responds to monetary liability. ( I think. I have less expereince in civil court than I do in Family or Criminal.)

 

[curious2c]

And what happens if someone did not truly commit the crime they are accused of...later they will be held accountable for it again...even though they were not really responsible... I don't llike that at all

If one is aquitted of a crime then a jury of twelve people have decided that they are innocent of comomiting that crime...reasonable doubt...then how can that person be held responsible for the same possible crime just because of civil rights or other violations

 

[Mischka]

The question was whether he was liable for money damages. No matter the outcome, he could not go to jail for it. The double Jeopardy provision applies to criminal cases: Double Jeopardy is:

[1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989).

Several cases have anvanced the idea that a large monetary damage award in a civil case amounts to "punishment" for the same offense, and hence qualifies as double jeopardy. I can't quote the names of the cases off the top of my head (that's lavy's area of expertise), but sometimes the judgment in a subsequent civil trial can be set aside as violative of double jeopardy.

 

[Rusher]

The Civil Rights Laws passed were passed in the 1960s because southern courts were consistently failing to convict whites accused of violence against blacks and civil rights workers, even when the evidence was overwhelming. The laws were necessary to protect American citizens. Since that time, however, prosecutors have used it in cases that had nothing to do with the civil rights movement.

I agree with you. It doesn't seem right or constitutional. It also is subject to abuse by prosecutors. Any time you give prosecutors a tool (e.g. the RICO statutes aimed at organized crime and The Patriot Act aimed at terrorists) they'll use it in ways you didn't intend or want. And you're stuck with it because they've followed the law.

 

[Lancecastor]

You should bid on general contracting the next Tower of Babel, Muff.

You pull the pin on an easy question, lob it into a thread, then run away to giggle someplace desultory while the fools babble of things which they know only enough to become emotional with each other.

It's trolling of the shoddiest variety.

As TWB has said, the civil case was framed in tort causing wrongful death and has no relationship to the criminal charge of murder other than relating to the same people and events.

Simply put, if the carpenter and plumber come to renovate your bathroom, their tasks are separate though they relate to the same room.

As I suspect you already know this, I hope you're enjoying your fans twist themselves into knots under another of your marvellous threads.

Cheers;

Lance

 

[kotori]

There was a case here where a guy killed his girlfriend. Although there was a preponderence of circumstantial evidence against him, it did not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test, and so he was acquited. Later, when the girlfriend's house was demolished for a public works project, a number of photographs were found which met certainly prooved his guilt. But as the Commonwealth had chosen to prosecute without this evidence, and lost the case, there was apparently no recourse. Except, that he was then indicted on Federal charges for unlawful imprisonment (I think that was it), and convicted based on the new evidence. After serving eight years in the Federal pen., the Commonwealth decided to indict him under a very similar law. He fought the indictment (claiming double jeopardy), but since different jurisdictions and different crimes (as defined by the indictments) were being tried, he went to his third trial for basically the same offence. Was he guilty of murder? Hell yes. Was justice done? I tend to believe so, even though it sorely tests the "double jeopardy" provision.

 

[Mischka]

You should bid on general contracting the next Tower of Babel, Muff.

You pull the pin on an easy question, lob it into a thread, then run away to giggle someplace desultory while the fools babble of things which they know only enough to become emotional with each other.

It's trolling of the shoddiest variety.

As TWB has said, the civil case was framed in tort causing wrongful death and has no relationship to the criminal charge of murder other than relating to the same people and events.

Simply put, if the carpenter and plumber come to renovate your bathroom, their tasks are separate though they relate to the same room.

As I suspect you already know this, I hope you're enjoying your fans twist themselves into knots under another of your marvellous threads.

Cheers;

Lance

Who is emotional? We're discussing the topic. It's quite an interesting topic, at least to several people. And as has been pointed out, the answer is not actually as clear-cut as your "carpenter and plumber" example.

As for this thread exemplifying KM's trolling ability, that's just absurd. She is not required to remain logged in for the duration of a thread. She did not lob any emotionally charged posts and then scamper. It's a legit question, and the resulting discourse follows that lead.

Amazing how you could find "fools" and babbling in such a thread. Glass half-empty kind of guy, are you?

 

[Harbinger]

I'm more interested in how the hell a lawsuit gets filed by parents against McDonalds because your children are fat. Sounds to me like the Parents are the ones that should be getting sued

No, that's "Double Chin Jeopardy".

 

[Lancecastor]

Glass half-empty kind of guy, are you?

Nah, just in a bad mood. Perhaps I have a pickle stuffed up me arse.

Lemme check......

 

[KillerMuffin]

Perhaps I should rephrase my question.

Is trying a person in criminal court for a crime and then trying the same person in civil court of the same crime ethical? Not according to the letter of the law, but the spirit of it. Or, if that's not enough to move from fact into theory, is it morally correct to try a person in a criminal court for a crime and then try that same person in a civil court for the same crime? Why or why not?

 

[MunchinMark]

I am not a lawyer and I live under a different legal code anyway. So I really can't say very much about the fifth ammendment etc.

I personally find the purpose of a civil action when the charges are criminal (e.g. murder) slightly suspect when a criminal trial has already found the defendant not guilty. Who really gains anything here. The defendant walks away, the plaintiffs (are they called that over there?) get money for the lives of their loved ones. Is this a return to weregild?

If a court has already said someone did not commit a crime then another court should not demand money on the basis that they probably did commit it. It's like saying the criminal court was wrong.

If new evidence arises, it should be reviewed and if it is considered serious enough a re-trial in a criminal court would be acceptable to my moral principals.

Of course, there is never any risk to life an limb- unless you're let off on a paedophile charge- in this country and hasn't been for 40 years, so a re-trial still wouldn't violate the conditions of the fifth ammendment.

[edited for appaling grasp of difference between 'your' and 'you're']

 

[SINthysist]

What about a case where cops get off criminal charges and then they file Federal charges? There's one in the last few years that comes to the tip of my mind.

Rodney King?

 

[Harbinger]

Let's say a drunk driver crashes into your car, and he has no insurance. The State will prosecute him for breaking the law. You can take him to civil court for damages you suffered, the same as if he were sober when he did it.

One is criminal, the other is civil.