for the murder?
2007-08-13 09:29:21 · 8 answers · asked by Centered 4 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
I am still not sure - ok, what does aquitted actually mean? Does it mean that he did it, but courts can't prove it. But that would be not guilty, right?
2007-08-13 09:38:05 · update #1
He was found "not guilty" in a criminal court where evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" is required for conviction.
He was found liable in a civil court where a "preponderance of the evidence" in enough to convict.
2007-08-13 09:39:15 · answer #1 · answered by wunofdamoronbros 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The standards are different. In a murder trial, the evidence must prove "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that he committed the crime. If any juror has ANY doubt whatsoever that he committed the crime, the juror is OBLIGATED to vote for acquittal. Without a unanimous guilty verdict, he cannot be convicted.
In a civil trial, the evidence must be "beyond REASONABLE doubt" that he committed the act. Two completely different standards. And in a civil trial, he can't be arrested or lose his civil liberties if the jury finds against him. He's just liable for payment of whatever judgment was rendered against him.
2007-08-13 09:37:07 · answer #2 · answered by Scotty Doesnt Know 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He was aquitted in criminal court, but was still held liable in a civil suit, that is when Nicole's family sued him the jury made him pay fines.
2007-08-13 10:08:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was found not guilty of the murder in a criminal court but was found responsible for the murder in a civil court where he was ordered to pay restitution to the family of the victims.
2007-08-13 09:38:36 · answer #4 · answered by Homeless in Phoenix 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are different degrees of proof between the criminal court which is beyond a shadow of doubt and the civil trial which is just a preponderance of the evidence.
2007-08-13 09:37:40 · answer #5 · answered by jpistorius380@sbcglobal.net 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
criminal and civil law has different standards of proof.
in criminal cases it is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
in civil cases "preponderance of evidence" or "more likely than not".
so a person can be found NOt Guilty in a criminal trial but guilty in the civil case.
There is also the issue of the jury in a criminal case that doesnt do its job properly but thats another issue.
2007-08-13 09:39:29 · answer #6 · answered by mark 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was acquitted criminally but is liable civilly. These are two Separate charges.
2007-08-13 09:36:23 · answer #7 · answered by fredrick z 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.
2007-08-13 09:36:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋