My family is involved in an embezzlement case and although we have some substantial evidence, I still wonder if we'll lose the criminal case, which requires the evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it possible or likely that in a situation where evidence is substantial but not overwhelming, that a civil case would award monies in excess of 100,000 embezzled over 15 years?
2007-10-19 11:54:14 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The standard of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The standard of proof in a civil case is "upon a preponderance of the evidence." A lower standard. So the exact evidence in a criminal trial that fails to meet the higher standard is often enough to sustain a judgment for plaintiff in a civil trial. But it is not always enough. Your attorney should advise you if it is or is not in his or her opinion.
By the way, you didnt lose the criminal case. You are really not a party to a criminal case. The state is. You are a complainant or victim.
Just a clarification for ya.
2007-10-19 12:13:38 · answer #1 · answered by Toodeemo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-10 04:06:41 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, only a defendant can lose a criminal case -- and if they do, then it's pretty much a guarantee that they will also lose the civil case (if its related) since the criminal conviction will be admitted against them as a determination of their civil liability.
But the reverse is easy -- a defendant being acquitted, but losing a civil case on the same issue -- because the criminal case has a higher standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- than the civil standard of "more likely than not" (preponderance of the evidence).
Other than a defendant or the govt -- nobody can be said to "win" or "lose" a criminal case -- because the govt and the defendant are the only two parties. But if you are the victim, and counting yourself on the govt side -- then yes, it's possible for the defendant to win the criminal case, but lose the civil case you file after that.
2007-10-19 12:15:40 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It happened in OJ's case. He was acquitted of murder, then found responsible for wrongful deaths. The standard of evidence is a lot lower in civil cases than criminal.
P.S. I swear I hadn't read other people's answers before writing that. Otherwise I would not have been the 10 millionth person to cite OJ. :)
2007-10-19 13:31:46 · answer #4 · answered by student_of_life 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A good example of this situation is the O.J. Simpson case. He was acquitted in the criminal case but found civilly responsible in a separate civil action filed by the Goldman and Brown families.
2007-10-19 12:01:01 · answer #5 · answered by Belen 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes. If someone is acquitted of a crime, they can still be found liable in a civil case based on the same incident.
This is what happened to OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of murder in a criminal case, but was found liable for causing the death of Ronald Goldman in the civil lawsuit.
2007-10-19 13:21:57 · answer #6 · answered by raichasays 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Criminal Record Search Database : http://www.SearchVerifyInfos.com/Info
2015-10-12 22:54:27 · answer #7 · answered by Kent 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, Ron Goldman's family lost the OJ trial but won the civil case.
2007-10-19 11:57:59 · answer #8 · answered by Bill 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
This is ridiculous. There are professional codes of ethics that lawyers must abide by. You can't "throw" a case, you'd be sued for malpractice.
2016-05-23 20:51:25 · answer #9 · answered by kristen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ Simpson ring a bell?
2007-10-19 12:15:09 · answer #10 · answered by mw 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋