If a person has been found not guilty for a murder, how can they be sued and found guilty for wrongful death?

Question

O.J. Simpson for example.

Answer 1

Because they are two separate offenses. Murder is a criminal offense. Theoretically one can be found not guilty if enough reasonable doubt is raised that someone else could have committed the offense.

Wrongful death is a civil offense, so the double jeopardy rule doesn't apply. Additionally in a civil case, guilt or innocence can be determined by a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower standard. In short, in a civil case the prosecution has to show there is enough evidence to show that the accused probably committed the crime.

Answer 2

Here's a reference to the Phil Spector trial from courttv.com:

"In the post-Simpson, post-Blake era, most people know the basics of civil cases. The plaintiff’s goal is money, not prison time, and the burden of proof is much lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” proof required at a criminal trial. Jurors in civil cases must only be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence (50.1% or higher) that Spector is liable for causing Clarkson’s death."

Answer 3

The full explanation would take forever, but the most crucial factor is that one is a civil action and one is a criminal prosecution. In criminal court the burden of proof is much more difficult to meet. It is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil court, the burden is "by preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence." So, the short answer is that wrongful death cases have a lesser burden of proof than a murder case.

Answer 4

Being found not guilty means the jury could not determine that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.. I very high legal standard.

In a civil action (wrongful death) the standard is much, much lower... preponderance of the evidence - the scales. If they tip in you favor you win.

Answer 5

Because the burden of proof in criminal cases is a lot more than in civil cases -- about half. In a criminal case, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (99.9%) that the person is guilty, but in civil court, to find them liable (not guilty) for wrongful death, you only have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, which is about 50%.

Answer 6

Being sued is a civil matter that only need a preponderance of eveidence, Murder is a criminal matter and a conviction made only when there is enough evidence to go beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, you don't have to have as much to win in a civil trail as you would in a criminal trial

Answer 7

Being found guilty in a criminal trial demands that the prosecution meet a higher standard of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt), than the standard of evidence a plaintiff would have to meet to prevail in a civil suit (preponderance of the evidence).

Answer 8

Because in a civil suit they don't have to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, I believe. Sometimes circumstantial evidence is enough to convince wrongful death.

Answer 9

A judge was co-opted by the headlines and the family of the murdered woman, and as a result disregarded the law.

If the judge presiding over the civil case had his wits about him, he would have dismissed the case out of hand because of the acquittal in the criminal case, but his decision shows that he sided with the family, and not the law. I am not surprised.

These are my opinions, and are not based on any factual or legal experience.

Best,

PoetExcelsior

Answer 10

The standard is different in civil vs. criminal cases. In criminal, guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil, the case must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.