I would like to know how if someone is on trial for murder and found innocent and all charges dismissed that the same person can be brought back to court on civil charges say by the victims family? Would not the innocent verdict be proof on this? I find this very confusing to say the least here. Anyone?

despite the fact that murder charges were dismissed by the court, whether it be county or supreme, the private family can still file charges by sueing. they can sue for a monetary value, an apology or property. The person cannot go to jail though from the results of a private lawsuit.

Seattle Ron is correct.

OJ Simpson's case is a very high profile example of this.

A Not-guilty verdict does not mean innocent. It means the jury does not find the defendant guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

In a civil suit, the plaintiff needs only a perponderance(sp) of evidence to win a case. It does not need to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, a criminal jury may be 75% sure of guilt, lets say. Not a very high percentage, so they would in all likelihood vote to acquit. A civil jury, with the same percentage of certainty against the defendant, would vote in favor of the plaintiff.

I hope this is of some help to you.

Thanks so much Ron and Yankee for the input..it does i guess just seem weird that they can do this when fouond innocent..I was watching a show on court TV about this. I had forgot the OJ simpson case was like this too.

O J's case was high pressure, from the press, and defence, but as many people think, he was (is) guilty.
many like cases are in court every day, but being NOT high profile, are gulity (not guilty) but who cares.
One law for the rich ????

It has to do with jurisdiction. Criminal courts have jurisdiction over criminal matters. If no crime has been committed (and sometimes even if one has), the civil courts take over. Some of the confusion arises because in both jurisdictions there is Superior Court, etc. Each matter must be heard by a court of "competent jurisdiction." Verdicts in one jurisdiction do not slop over onto other jurisdictions, as has been pointed out.

Catty

A verdict of 'Not Guilty' is not a declaration of the accused's innocence. The nearest approach to that in the trial is when the prosecution offers no evidence to the court or where the judge directs the jury that there is no case to answer.Outside that a successful claim in the civil courts for malicious prosecution or wrongful arrest is, in effect, a vindication or, better yet, the conviction of a key prosecution witness for perjury in the trial , a very rare event, would serve. Of course, newspapers regularly affect to miss this subtlety and are given to declaring that this or that witness called by the prosecution was 'branded a liar' by the jury when the truth is that the witness' evidence, or the cumulative effect of all the evidence, was such that the jury were unsure that it proved guilt.

What happened to 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'?

A person is innocent until a guilty verdict is returned in a court of law. No declaration of innocence is required, only a declaration of guilt.

[This message was edited by Adi on 05-08-03 at 08:21 AM.]

It's a romantic idea, Adi ! It is a dramatic way of describing the burden of proof which rests on the prosecution and may be used by laymen but it is incorrect in law.That is not to say that judges never say it to juries ( though I can't recall one doing so) but, if done, they say it not as a strict law lesson but to emphasise that no burden lies on the defendant and that 'proved' means proof to the high standard traditionally given as 'beyond reasonable doubt.' If it were true that the verdict proved innocence it would be impossible for there to be a civil action on the same questions of fact. There would be an 'issue estoppel' pleaded at the outset i.e that the verdict in the criminal trial was the final answer to exactly the same question now asked in the civil trial . That has never been the common law.It was not the same question.The question in the criminal trial was 'is the accused proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt not 'is he proved innocent?' or even 'is he more likely guilty than not?'

[This message was edited by FredPuli on 05-08-03 at 01:36 PM.]

[This message was edited by FredPuli on 05-08-03 at 01:37 PM.]

[This message was edited by FredPuli on 05-08-03 at 01:41 PM.]

Fred

It's not a romantic idea and I think you miss the point.

The verdict doesn't prove innocence, only guilt.

There is absolutely no need for a declaration of innocence, since you ARE innocent anyway (in the eyes of the law) until a guilty verdict has been returned in a court of law. The principle of innocence until proven guilty is enshrined in law (European & UN rights acts as well as national laws). The judge doesn't have to say that you are innocent in a courtroom since this is a given and everyone knows it (at least in the legal profession).

It doesn't matter what is or is not said in court and by whom, the only thing that means you are NOT innocent of a particular charge is a guilty verdict in court. Until that time, you are innocent. Full stop. No declarations necessary. It's guaranteed.

Yes, Adi. The problem is more noticeable with cases of murder ot serious assault because the questions of fact on which the case is decided remain the same in the two courts and usually the intent of the defendant is in issue too.You could hardly plead the OJ case in the civil court as a case of negligence and so avoid saying he was guilty of murder ( even if OJ had finally admitted being the cause of the injuries ) ! The fact remains though that, however wrong or unjust it may seem, an acquittal is not proof of innocence and the saying that an accused is presumed innocent is an exaggeration, if it is taken to mean that.It will remain so as long as the standard of proof necessary to be reached before a court may find against the defendant is only 'proof on the balance of probabilities' in the civil but 'proof beyond any reasonable doubt' in the criminal court, or claimants are debarred from suing over matters which have been the subject of an acquittal. The latter could lead to anomalies and great injustice if only because we never know precisely what facts the jury found proved in the criminal case. In many cases the jury may not believe a word of what the defendant says about alibi, or anything else, but be unsure over some other question ( sometimes of necessity not raised by the defencant himself ) which in itself may not be absolutely essential to the civil action. OJ was found not guilty of murder in the criminal trial; the civil court found him probably guilty. He was unfortunate. Few such men are rich enough to be worth suing!

Fred

It sounds like we are perhaps talking at cross purposes, but taking from your post...

quote[

The fact remains though that, however wrong or unjust it may seem, an acquittal is not proof of innocence and the saying that an accused is presumed innocent is an exaggeration...

]endquote

You're right, an acquittal is not a proof of innocence, but you don't need this. This is what the UN, European and national laws are guaranteeing you as a person. YOU NEVER NEED TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE OR REQUIRE ANY DECLARATION OF YOUR INNOCENCE. Unless you are found guilty, that's it. Nice and simple and deliberately designed that way. We don't have to keep going around 'proving' our innocence; it's just not required of us.

Sorry for shouting. ;-)