Man acquitted on criminal charge has to pay $49,000 in shooting incident

[General Tso]

LIMA, OHIO — A $49,000 verdict was issued Wednesday against an Allen County man acquitted two years ago on criminal charges related to a parking lot shooting.

While a criminal court jury found Adrian D. Banks acted in self defense when he fired a shot at his ex-wife, Tamara Eberle, a civil jury ruled against him. Banks said his ex-wife was trying to run him over with a car when he pulled his handgun and fired a shot at her in the parking lot of the Knights Inn on Elida Road on May 13, 2007.

Eberle was shot in the leg.

Eberle, who was married to Banks for a short period of time, sued over the incident. She also was awarded attorney fees which are yet to be determined.

Banks held a concealed carry license at the time but did not renew his license, a sheriff’s sergeant said.

Banks was charged with felonious assault with a gun and faced up to 11 years in prison. Banks’ attorney during the criminal trial said he was at the motel to take pictures of his wife with another man. The marriage was ending and he was seeking proof to use in their divorce case.

 

[One-Time]

Thats why I love Florida law, here if we have a shoot ruled as a good shoot we are not liable civily either

 

[LRS_Ranger]

Could you even appeal something like this?

 

[Deanimator]

Thats why I love Florida law, here if we have a shoot ruled as a good shoot we are not liable civily either

The same thing applies in Ohio to the best of my knowledge.

I think the problem is that that law was passed AFTER the shooting took place.

 

[Deanimator]

Could you even appeal something like this?

Of course. The question is, which would be more expensive and on what grounds?

 

[NavyLCDR]

It does seem like bad aim causes a lot of problems... that's why I practice at least once a month. Washington, BTW, also has a civil suit protection law. Also, in WA, the state has to pay the defendants legal bills if it is a self defense shooting.

Interesting case in Washington, an Everett police officer shoots an unarmed drunk driver because he won't get out of the car. The jury rules the shooting was justified but NOT in self defense (which I still don't understand, it would be nice if the police had to play by the same shooting rules as us). Anyway, that means the officer can now face the civil lawsuit.

 

[Warhawk83]

Louisiana also has protection against civil suits in such instances. I am amazed that he was even charged but it is generally looked at as the husband's fault in domestic disputes.

 

[Phatty]

Had he placed his shot better this could have been resolved on the spot.

That would have been true 120 years ago when wrongful death actions didn't exist.

 

[oasis618]

I've never understood how if someone is found criminally innocent that they can still be found civilly liable. It seems like a bit of a racket to me...if it's been decided that I did nothing wrong then why should I still have to pay for it.

Maybe someone can answer this for me as well. Would a civil judgement against a person be something that an umbrella policy could possibly cover? Just curious.

 

[Art Eatman]

oasis, the requirements for proof in a civil case are not as stringent as in a criminal case.

Think back to the OJ Simpson events as a well-explained and publicized example. (But let's not drift into discussion of that.)

 

[brboyer]

oasis, the requirements for proof in a civil case are not as stringent as in a criminal case.

Think back to the OJ Simpson events as a well-explained and publicized example. (But let's not drift into discussion of that.)

Thankfully, in Florida the Civil case would not be permitted to proceed.

 

[oasis618]

Oh I understand how it's possible, I just don't understand why it's allowed in the first place. If the our judicial system finds that the defendant did not commit a crime, I don't see how a family can still go after a person for the results of the incindent, let alone win. Our legal system is far from perfect and sometimes the guilty go free and sometimes the innocent are locked up, but it is the best system I've done any reading on. I guess what I'm saying is that it almost seems like borderline double jeopardy. The accused isn't convicted and can't be tried again so lets try to ruin him or her financially now. Just my opinion and I'm just thinking out loud.

 

[DCR]

Think OJ for a parallel of how someone can be acquitted of the criminal action but be found liable in a civil action. Granted, there are extreme differences between OJ and this case, but the bottom line principle is the same. Sad deal.

 

[oasis618]

Again...I'm aware that it CAN happen and yes I know all about OJ. My point was that I don't see why it is allowed to happen. It's like "well that didn't work so lets try this". I suppose there are plenty of civil cases brought after a defendant is found guilty as well though. I do agree, it is a sad deal.

 

[huntsman]

he was at the motel to take pictures of his wife with another man. The marriage was ending and he was seeking proof to use in their divorce case.

should've hired a PI.

 

[oasis618]

I agree. Having somebody with no emotional involvement in that situation would be a much better idea.

 

[Husker_Fan]

There really isn't enough information to tell. All we know is that one jury either couldn't find all the facts necessary to convict beyond a reasonable doubt or they believed it more likely than not that he was acting in self defense. Another jury believed it was more likely than not that he did not act in self defense. Different standards apply

For those who think that a civil imunity statute would have prevented the lawsuit, that just isn't so. There is no self defense fairy who flutters down and sprinkles pixy dust that makes you immune to civil liability. A shooter may get sued and then it is up to the judge or jury to decide of the defendant is immune under the statute. Either way, the shooter winds up in court. That's why the civil immunity statutes need to include a "loser pays" provision so that the immune defendant doesn't get stuck with thousands of dollars in legal fees.

 

[Phatty]

I've never understood how if someone is found criminally innocent that they can still be found civilly liable.

A criminal jury does not find anyone to be innocent, they simply find if somebody is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

 

[Jon_Snow]

Oasis, being aquitted in a criminal trial isn't the jury saying you didn't do it; they're saying they aren't positive you did it. Probably did it isn't (supposed to be) good enough in a criminal trial, whereas in a civil suit probably is enough to rule against you.

Husker_Fan, I wish judges could rule any civil suit, not just shooting related ones, frivolous and force the plaintiff to pay the defendant's legal fees. That might put a damper on the people and lawyers out there who bring up bogus suits in the hopes that the other party will settle because it's cheaper than defend themselves in court.

 

[oasis618]

Well I can change the wording of my post if that would help but arguing semantics isn't going to change my view on civil liablity after being found NOT GUILTY of the crime. It is a little scary to know that "probably did it" would stand up in any type of court. My wife works in personal injury law so I guess I'm a bit disenchanted with the system from hearing about so many frivolous lawsuits (most unrealated to shootings). I'm well aware of how the system works, all I was getting at was that I don't necessarily agree with it and I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world ever to disagree with a governmental process. Again, just my unsolicited opinion.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I've never understood how if someone is found criminally innocent that they can still be found civilly liable....if it's been decided that I did nothing wrong then why should I still have to pay for it....

What you need to understand that an acquittal by a jury in a criminal case is not a positive finding that the defendant was innocent or that the defendant did nothing wrong. It is a negative finding that the state did not prove that the defendant committed the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant may very well have done it, but the state wasn't able to meet its substantial burden of proof.

This is a "side effect" of being innocent until proven guilty. When the defendant enters the courtroom for his trial on a criminal charge, he is presumed to be innocent. Only if the jury then finds that the state has overcome that presumption beyond a reasonable doubt may be be found guilty. If the state has failed to meet that substantial burden, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.

 

[rbernie]

What you need to understand that an acquittal by a jury in a criminal case is not a positive finding that the defendant was innocent or that the defendant did nothing wrong. It is a negative finding that the state did not prove that the defendant committed the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant may very well have done it, but the state wasn't able to meet its substantial burden of proof.

Understood - the real question being asked (rhetorically) is why the civil burden is lower than the criminal burden....

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Understood - the real question being asked (rhetorically) is why the civil burden is lower than the criminal burden....

Good question, and probably most of the answers are somewhat muddled now, because the different burdens of proof in civil and criminal litigation go back hundreds of years in the evolution of the Common Law of England, on which our legal system is based.

For one thing, at least traditionally what's at stake is very different. If convicted of a crime, one loses his freedom, or in some cases his life. He also suffers the obloquy of having been adjudge a criminal.

On the other hand, civil cases are about the ownership of property or paying someone money.

 

[Phatty]

Understood - the real question being asked (rhetorically) is why the civil burden is lower than the criminal burden....

Even if the burdens were the same, it wouldn't make any difference in this case. Judgments are only binding against the parties who participated in the case in which the judgment was entered. The ex-wife would not be bound by the jury's determination in the criminal case because she was not a party to that case.

Here's an example. Ten people filed ten separate lawsuits against Toyota claiming that their 2007 Prius was defectively designed and caused them to be injured when their car accelerated out of control. The first person's case goes to trial and the jury finds that the 2007 Prius was not defectively designed and rules in favor of Toyota. The second person's case goes to trial and that jury also finds in favor of Toyota. Toyota then gets defense verdicts in the next seven cases. But, the tenth person goes to trial and the jury finds that the 2007 Prius was defectively designed and awards the plaintiff $1,000,000. Even though nine juries considering the same exact question found in favor Toyota, those judgments had absolutely no effect on the tenth person because he was not a party in any of the first nine cases.

 

[oasis618]

What you need to understand that an acquittal by a jury in a criminal case is not a positive finding that the defendant was innocent or that the defendant did nothing wrong. It is a negative finding that the state did not prove that the defendant committed the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant may very well have done it, but the state wasn't able to meet its substantial burden of proof.

I completely understand what you are saying. But...if the state did not meet the burden of proof (yes I know they could still have commited the crime)...then the defendant is legally not liable for the crime, so why then should they be liable to pay the victim as the result of a crime that the state could not prove they commited.

Like rbernie stated, "the real question being asked (rhetorically) is why the civil burden is lower than the criminal burden.... ".

It is a rhetorical question attached to an opinion so please keep that in mind.