NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, Robert Blake was just found liable in the wrongful death of his wife despite being acquitted of criminal charges. He has to pay $30 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/18/blake.trial.ap/index.html

Thinking about people being found liable for civil damages after being acquitted of the criminal charges makes my head hurt. SO I leave this for you. :)

Thinking about people being found liable for civil damages after being acquitted of the criminal charges makes my head hurt.
Civil cases have a lower burden of proof ('balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond reasonablt doubt)'.

Well, Robert Blake was just found liable in the wrongful death of his wife despite being acquitted of criminal charges. He has to pay $30 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/18/blake.trial.ap/index.html

Thinking about people being found liable for civil damages after being acquitted of the criminal charges makes my head hurt. SO I leave this for you. :)

And you ask me why I carry a gun? There's no justice as satisfying as hot lead.

Well, Robert Blake was just found liable in the wrongful death of his wife despite being acquitted of criminal charges. He has to pay $30 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/18/blake.trial.ap/index.html

Thinking about people being found liable for civil damages after being acquitted of the criminal charges makes my head hurt. SO I leave this for you. :)

It's baffled me since OJ, and the only thing I can attribute it to is, it's California. Common sense, at least by my way of thinking, dictates that a not guilty verdict means, exactly that. I believe that he is guilty as hell, but in my world it is no different that being tried twice for the same crime.

It's baffled me since OJ, and the only thing I can attribute it to is, it's California. Common sense, at least by my way of thinking, dictates that a not guilty verdict means, exactly that. I believe that he is guilty as hell, but in my world it is no different that being tried twice for the same crime.As Safalra noted above--different burden of proof. In a civil case, all you have to do is prove preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not even sure if you need a unanimous verdict or not--you may just need a majority or a two-thirds.

As Safalra noted above--different burden of proof. In a civil case, all you have to do is prove preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not even sure if you need a unanimous verdict or not--you may just need a majority or a two-thirds.


In this case it was a 10-2 vote.

What really struck me with Blake was the fact that they didn't even bother to come up with a single scenario in which to prove the elements of the crime. Indeed, they offered the option that either Blake killed her or he had someone else do it (the one-armed guy perhaps?), and the jury didn't even have to choose which option they believed.

At that point you are entering the realm of conviction entirely on the basis of character, which is assinine.

In this case it was a 10-2 vote.

What really struck me with Blake was the fact that they didn't even bother to come up with a single scenario in which to prove the elements of the crime. Indeed, they offered the option that either Blake killed her or he had someone else do it (the one-armed guy perhaps?), and the jury didn't even have to choose which option they believed.

At that point you are entering the realm of conviction entirely on the basis of character, which is assinine.
I haven't kept up with the story, largely because I don't care, and because regardless of the judgment, it's not like Blake's got the money to pay the family anyway. It sounds like Blake's attorney did a piss-poor job, though, based on your post.