Innocent in Criminal Court but guilty in Civil?

Question

Why is it that a murder suspect can be found innocent in criminal court but then guilty in civil court?

Such as in the OJ Simpson murder case.

Thanks

Answer 1

It is because the presumption of innocence follows all defendants throughout the criminal proceeding unless and until a judge or jury delivers a guilty verdict. The burden of proof the prosecution must meet is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
In a civil case, the burden of proof is by "a preponderance of the evidence" which is a lesser burden.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

a lot of people have given the correct answer but nobody has said why it is...

Beyond reasonable doubt, the criminal standard, means a fact has to be proven really really convincingly or it isnt accepted. Balance of probabilities (Or I think you say "preponderance of the evidence" in the USA), the civil standard, means it just has to be more likely than not. So Balance of probs really just means if you prove something 51%, its enough. Beyond reasonable doubt is more like proving it 98%

It's a higher standard in criminal cases because the results are so much more severe: a person can lose their liberty or their life, as well as having a big social stigma of being "a criminal". You lose a civil case, you only lose money. It's easier to get less reliable evidence, like hearsay, admitted at civil trials for the same reason - the stakes arent so high.

Answer 4

In criminal court, the defendant can only be found guilty if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime. In other words, there is no reasonable explanation for what happened, other than this person committed the crime that he was accused of. In civil court, a defendant is liable if a preponderance of the evidence proves that he committed the wrong. In other words, it is more likely than not that he did what he was accused of. So it can be shown that it is more likely than not that a person killed his wife and a waiter while the houseboy slept in the guest house, but there are still other reasonable explanations as to how they died.

Answer 5

The standards of proof are higher in a criminal trial, that being "beyond a reasonable doubt" whereas in a civil trial, the standard of proof is "the preponderance of evidence." There can be some doubt, but if you believe as a juror that 51% of the evidence offered in a civil trial says he's guilty, you can vote guilty.

Answer 6

The bar in criminal cases is higher than a civil court.

In criminal cases, one only need to show a "reasonable doubt". Hearsay cannot be used as evidence.

Not so in civil cases.

The OJ case became a racial injustice.

Answer 7

The level of rules in civil court is less than criminal court. Some of the evidence that is allowed in civil can't be used in crminal.

Answer 8

Bcuz civil court isnt determined by a reasonable doubt. There can be a mountain of doubt but if the jury believes the plaintiff, thats all thats needed.

Answer 9

There is a much lower standard in Civil court.

Answer 10

Good Question !!! This is a very (Hard To Believe) story here in the good o'l U.S.A. ... It happened to O.J. & they will not stop till this kind of B.S, Court System gets it's fill. I do Believe that this is a (Kind Of Court) that solely depends on wether or not that the (Accused) has enough Moeny to take something from the (Defendant)... I guess that someone (Figured Out) that ...If they can't Screw You one way-that they'll Screw You another way!!! All of this stuff really makes one (Wonder) if your Constitutional Rights have been Violated or not. rumeoui