Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATN082268
<Snip Post>
<Also remember that while a criminal acquittal is typically not going to have collateral impact on a civil litigation, a criminal *conviction* absolutely can and likely will.>
How does that work exactly? |
Well, it is related to burdens of proof. In order to get a criminal conviction, the prosecutor has to support the highest legal burden: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Civil cases are judged by a lower legal burden: By a Preponderance of the Evidence.
So if the SD shooter has already been convicted of something, the elements of that crime have already been established Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. In the civil case, the plaintiff's attorney is going to argue (at least in settlement negotiations) that those elements which overlap have already been proven by the State in the criminal case, and to a higher burden that he will have to meet in the civil case (Preponderance).
If it goes the other way (civil first, then criminal), which is unlikely, then even if the civil plaintiff wins, the criminal defense attorney can reasonably take the position that "just because the plaintiff was able to establish x, y, and z by a preponderance of the evidence, doesn't mean that the State can establish them beyond a reasonable doubt."
Does that help clarify matters?