at the conclusion of a six-day criminal trial one is found not guilty would this affect a civil trial?

Answer 1

Not really. In a criminal trial, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but for a civil trial, guilt only needs to be supported by a preponderance of evidence, which is much easier to prove.

Answer 2

No. There has been many people found not guilty in a criminal trial and than turn around and found guilty in a civil trial. Personally I feel this is double jeopardy because they are being tried for the same crime twice. Or at least the decision in the criminal trial should affect the civil

Answer 3

Besides the differences in burden of proof - "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal conviction and "preponderance of the evidence" for civil, the plaintiffs are not the same.
In a criminal trial the state is the plaintiff, you are not. In a civil trial, you could be the plaintiff, and the state has nothing to do with it.
Note that if someone is found guilty in a criminal trial, it pretty much makes a civil trial a slam-dunk.

Answer 4

Not necessarily.

It's a different standard of proof. In a criminal trial, it's beyond a reasonable doubt (a pretty high standard) in a civil trial it's a preponderance of the evidence, or it looks more likely than unlikely ( a much lower standard)

That's why OJ got hammered in the civil wrongful death trial for $33 million after being acquited of murder in the criminal trial.

Answer 5

It would have no impact whatsoever. The identities of the parties is different as is the burden of proof. You can be found not guilty in a criminal proceeding and yet held liable in a civil action.

Answer 6

no
look at OJ
found innnocent of double homicide crimnially
but found guilty finacially for the murders

Answer 7

no.it is a totally diferant case.