Civil liability in justified shootings

[JohnKSa]

Acquittal in criminal court does not convey immunity in civil court. (Ask OJ.)

It certainly doesn't in general, however the OJ case is not relevant here.

This discussion is specifically about states that have laws that DO provide civil immunity in certain situations. In the OJ case there were no analogous laws providing civil immunity.

 

[JRH6856]

The revlevancy is that what happens in criminal court does not convey immunity in civil court. Even in states that have laws that DO provide civil immunity, it is the LAW that provided the civil immunity, not the criminal court results. Whether or not civil immunity is attached, and if not, whether or not there is liability, will be decided by the civil courts.

 

[JohnKSa]

Just to be clear, you're saying that if I'm acquitted in criminal court of a self-defense shooting under the castle doctrine, that acquittal has zero impact on the civil immunity clause that says a shooting justified by castle doctrine conveys civil immunity?

 

[JRH6856]

It well may. But what I am saying is that the determination of whether it does or not will be made by the civil court, not the criminal court.

 

[JohnKSa]

Basically the civil court would have to try the case under criminal law to determine if the shooting was justified? How does that work?

And what's the point? If the justifiability of the shooting will be determined by the preponderance of the evidence instead of the criminal standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, what benefit does the civil immunity clause actually provide?

 

[JRH6856]

what benefit does the civil immunity clause actually provide?

That's the question, isn't it? When I say "civil court", I never said "trial". Once the suit is filed, it requires a response to avoid a default judgement. The response may show that the respondent was acquitted in criminal court and move for dismissal on that basis. The civil judge may find that to be sufficient grounds to dismiss the case at that point.

OTOH, what if the police determine the shooting to be justifiable as self defense and never take the case to the DA? Or the DA never takes the case to a grand jury? Or the grand jury returns a no bill? Charges are never filed, the case never makes it to criminal court and there is no acquittal. What benefit does the civil immunity clause provide then?

 

[JohnKSa]

Well, that was my original point. Without a criminal trial, there's really not much to hang your hat on in terms of proof that the shooting was justified.

My starting assumption was that the only thing that you could likely rely on as proof of a justified shooting under castle doctrine would be a criminal acquittal citing that the shooting was justified under the castle doctrine. Otherwise it's up in the air.

If I'm reading your posts right, you're saying that not even a criminal acquittal would ensure that the civil immunity clause kicks in. Basically you're saying that there's no way to tell in advance if the civil immunity clause will provide protection. Even less optimistic than my rather pessimistic statement...

 

[JRH6856]

Basically you're saying that there's no way to tell in advance if the civil immunity clause will provide protection.

Exactly. As to being pessimistic, I believe in at least trying to be prepared for the worst. That's why I prepare for SD in the first place.

 

[CapnMac]

And what's the point? If the justifiability of the shooting will be determined by the preponderance of the evidence

To my understanding, the tort will not address "justifiability"--that's addressed in the criminal case (if one is brought). The tort will only address the negligence of actions taken.

The situation will, in a certain sense, be turned on its head. Whether or not "the shoot was good" will possibly be immaterial. What will be material is whether the dozen in the jury conclude that the preponderance of the evidence shows that you should have done X instead of Y, and that you should have/must have known that in advance, and did it anyway.

Juries are fickle creatures and are made up with people who learned everything they know from network tv. A body wants to stay away from being the focus of one in the same amount they ought to want to wander into an infectious disease ward--knowingly, with protection, and professional help.

 

[JohnKSa]

To my understanding, the tort will not address "justifiability"--that's addressed in the criminal case (if one is brought).

One way or another, the issue of the possibility of civil immunity must be addressed since the suit obviously can't progress if it is applicable for the case in question.

If there has been no criminal trial, then there will have to be at least some attempt made by the civil court to determine if the shooting (was/was not) justifiable under the castle doctrine.

What will be material is whether the dozen in the jury conclude that the preponderance of the evidence shows that you should have done X instead of Y, and that you should have/must have known that in advance, and did it anyway.

That's certainly how it will work if the civil immunity clause is considered to be inapplicable to the case at hand. HOWEVER, if the civil immunity clause is applicable then nothing should progress past that determination since there can be no civil liability in that case.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MicroTecniqs: The revlevancy is that what happens in criminal court does not convey immunity in civil court. Even in states that have laws that DO provide civil immunity, it is the LAW that provided the civil immunity, not the criminal court results. Whether or not civil immunity is attached, and if not, whether or not there is liability, will be decided by the civil courts.

In most states we are in uncharted territory, but I think that's a very good assumption.

Posted by JohnKSA: Basically the civil court would have to try the case under criminal law to determine if the shooting was justified? How does that work?

The judge decides whether the immunity clause applies; whether a trial occurs depends on that ruling.

And what's the point? If the justifiability of the shooting will be determined by the preponderance of the evidence instead of the criminal standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, what benefit does the civil immunity clause actually provide?

The clause establishes a rule under which the civil judge can examine the evidence upon receipt of some kind of motion of civil immunity, and if a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the shooting was justified under the law, prevent the civil suit from proceeding.

That's how the portion of the law involving immunity from prosecution works, too. The judge rules on whether the immunity clause applies before a trial proceeds.

Without a criminal trial, there's really not much to hang your hat on in terms of proof that the shooting was justified.

There is the evidence--the same evidence that the defense would have had to produce to prevail in a criminal trial.

Posted by CapnMac: To my understanding, the tort will not address "justifiability"--that's addressed in the criminal case (if one is brought). The tort will only address the negligence of actions taken.

While the civil suit may or may not address whether the actions that led to the tort were justified, if the state law does provide for immunity from civil liability in the event of justified use of force, the judge's ruling on immunity will hinge entirely upon justifiability. That's the way most of these laws read.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The revlevancy is that what happens in criminal court does not convey immunity in civil court...

In most states we are in uncharted territory,...

Kleanbore hit the nail on the head. The thing is that these civil immunity laws are sufficiently new that courts have not fully worked out how they will apply.

Every civil immunity law sets out certain things, e. g., that the use of force was justified, that have to be true for civil immunity to attach. But it's generally not clear how those things will need to be established to invoke civil immunity.

And the reality is that as a matter of law a verdict of not guilty in a criminal case does not establish as a matter of fact innocence (in a self defense case that the use of force was justified). It merely establishes that the prosecution was not able to establish as true beyond a reasonable doubt the facts necessary for the defendant to be guilty.

 

[JRH6856]

The thing is that these civil immunity laws are sufficiently new that courts have not fully worked out how they will apply.

Yes, we can argue over the statutes till hell freezes over, but we won't really know what they mean until they are applied in court. Problem with laymen discussing law is that most of us can find the statutes easily enough but we don't have adequate access to case law, and case law is where you find out what the law really means.