can sue for wrongful death and win a judgement of 33 million dollars. I don't understand how innocent can lead to this. I'm not saying he did it, and I am not saying he didn't. I just want an explanation of the wrongful death suit.
2007-09-16 14:29:37 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The standard of proof in criminal court is "beyond any doubt". The standard of proof in civil court is much less -- the jury only needs to believe that you're liable for the nasty outcome.
And the jury awarded 33 million in the civil suit.
I can't say they made a bad decision, either.
2007-09-16 14:37:57 · answer #1 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The wrongful death suit was a civil matter. The murder trial was a criminal matter. In a criminal case, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil matters, the burden is a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, O.J. was found civilly responsible, but was not found guilty.
2007-09-16 21:38:30 · answer #2 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof is less in a civil court.
In criminal court, they needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. Sadly, the glove didn't fit.
In a civil court, you only need to prove a preponderance of evidence that someone is responsible. Almost all of th evidence pointed to him.
2007-09-16 21:36:24 · answer #3 · answered by Pretty_Trini_Rican 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Civil trials and criminal trials are treated separately, there is no double jeopardy as interpreted by the supreme court.
2007-09-16 21:38:53 · answer #4 · answered by Monk 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was NOT found innocent, he just wasn't found guilty. There's a big difference.
2007-09-16 22:35:37 · answer #5 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋