How was OJ Simpson found liable for murders in a civil suit if he was aquitted in court before?

Answer 1

Because a criminal trial has a different standard for guilt or innocence ("beyond a reasonable doubt") as opposed to the standard for a civil lawsuit ("preponderance of the evidence" or basically, which side has the better evidence). If OJ had lost the criminal trial, then he would have been liable civilly because he had already lost on the higher standard of proof. But he didn't.

Dana, practicing lawyer

Answer 2

The prosecutor desires to coach guilt "previous a lifelike doubt" om a criminal case. The plaintiff in a civil case would not have that burden. Simpson became got here across to have brought about the deaths of Nicole and Ron Goldman and became ordered to pay the kinfolk contributors hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, yet there is not any penitentiary time in touch.

Answer 3

The answer lies in the evidentiary difference between civil law and criminal law. In criminal law, you must present a case that proves the defendant "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil law, the verdict hinges on "the preponderance of evidence."

Answer 4

Because in a civil trial you do not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt like you do in a criminal trial. It takes less evidence to find someone guilty in a civil trial.

Answer 5

He was not believed to be innocent in the murder. He was found to have been involved somehow, they just didnt believe him. Civil and criminal courts are different. In criminal court you have to prove without reasonable doubt. In civil court its not that difficult to prove your point.

P.S Dana gets the 10 Points... damn college education.

Answer 6

Because you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime.

In a suit you only have to give enough evidence that it happened to win money.