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

[Phatty]

why the civil burden is lower than the criminal burden

fiddletown touched on some of the reasons for the difference, but the key difference is that in civil cases you have one private individual suing another private individual, which the law places on equal footing (except that ties go to the defendant). However, in a criminal case, the balance is weighted against the state and in favor of the private individual.

Note that in many countries (and way more in the past) the balance is weighted heavily in favor of the state and against the private individual. In those countries, the state declares that you are guilty and then you would have to prove to the trier of fact that you are innocent.

 

[Frank Ettin]

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....

True in this case. However, things can get complicated.

For example, if the guy had been found guilty, he would not have been able to claim self defense in defense of a civil suit; because he had been found guilty of the criminal charge and therefore without justification or excuse, he would have been "collaterally estopped" from claiming justification or excuse in the civil case.

...but the key difference is that in civil cases you have one private individual suing another private individual, which the law places on equal footing (except that ties go to the defendant). However, in a criminal case, the balance is weighted against the state and in favor of the private individual...

And I agree. This is also was significant factor in how the respective burdens of proof developed.

It's interesting to note that there is an intermediate burden of proof, between "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt." In certain type of civil actions, for example, if someone is seeking a permanent injunction, one's claim must be proven by "clear and convincing" evidence.

...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...

Well one answer is that it's not that the defendant hasn't been found liable; it's that the defendant hasn't been found criminally liable. Another answer is simply that's the way it is in real life and it has been that way under the Common Law for at least several hundred years.

 

[oasis618]

Point taken. I guess the gist of it is that the criminal case and the civil case are not mutually exclusive so they do not at all depend on eachother to exist. I have seen the light.

 

[Zoogster]

There is a very different level of proof required in criminal and civil court.

If a jury actually does what they are supposed to then the same exact jury could find someone not guilty in one, but at fault in another.

A "preponderance of evidence" means someone is more likely than not to have done something based on the evidence. So if there is a 51% chance they did what they are accused of, then they can lose.

However "beyond a reasonable doubt" means even if you feel they are most likely guilty, if there is a decent chance they are not you are supposed to find them not guilty.
This means even if you believe they did it, but there is say a 20% chance it was someone else, you are supposed to find them not guilty even though you are 80% sure they did it.
This is under the premise that it is better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man put in prison.
Now many potential jurors may not do this, and instead base their decision on what they feel most likely occurred, but they are not supposed to, and are removing some of the accused rights by doing so.

(In many nations it is the reverse concept. Where if the person was arrested for a criminal action, and are believed most likely guilty by the jury (or just judge or judges in some), then it is best for society that the criminal be found guilty.
Some of those nations go even further and start with the premise that if the government went through the trouble to make a case, then the person must be assumed guilty and will be found guilty, unless they can clearly show otherwise.
Meaning if there is any doubt to their innocence they are to be found guilty.)





What all this means is if jurors are doing what they are supposed to in respecting the rights of the citizen, it would be quite easy to find someone not guilty in a criminal case where it may have been self defense, but still find them most likely to have acted poorly in a civil case.


We don't know all the facts in the trial so lets make some assumptions from what we have:
So lets say this guy shot his wife, and the details show he may not have needed to. That he in fact was angry over his wife sleeping with the other man and not really there just to take pictures.
But lets also say that his wife perhaps acting in self defense or angry herself tried to flee or use her car to leave her dangerous husband who was clearly following her.
That he was blocking her path, and so she tried to go around him or even through him.
Lets say as she went passed him he shot through the side of the car door, hitting her in the leg.
So we have both a potentially dangerous guy that may have followed her for reasons other than just taking pictures, and a guy who may or may not have actually needed to use his gun to defend himself.
In a criminal trial we are supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. He may have gone there, put himself in that situation, confronted his wife, argued with her, etc
She may have also actually tried to run him over, perhaps doing circles or was turning around to hit him again, or he may have believed she was trying to do so.
So he may have been completely in the wrong, or he may have been acting in self defense. So we have reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
In civil court however he clearly put himself in that situation, chose to confront her, chose to create a scene in public, and then shot someone as the situation escalated for whatever reason.
We may have reasonable doubt he was criminal in the shooting, but we can certainly assign a significant level of blame to him for the situation and the result. The level of fault turns into $$$$.
How at fault can also be split amongst the parties. Lets say she was uninsured and required $80,000 in medical care, physical rehabilitation to walk again, and psychiatric treatment to get over the emotional trauma.
If he was 50% at fault and she was 50% at fault, then he would owe her $40,000.

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

Florida on the other hand essentially tells the jury that it must decide everything at the criminal trial. That could actually be worse for a shooter.
If you are a jury member and you feel that the guy is 51-90% likely to be guilty, but have some reasonable doubt, you may still find him guilty so his "victim" has some recourse rather than letting him off scot-free.
If a guy put himself into a situation likely to create a need for force and then played a big role in escalating the situation, it might be fair that he pay the person shot or their family something for his poor decision making.
But in Florida you cannot both do that and give him no criminal record or prison time in a separate civil and criminal case.
You have to find him guilty of criminal charges to hold him accountable for any wrong doing.
So someone in Florida may actually be more likely to go to prison or get a felony record if the jury has any sympathy for the person shot or their family than if criminal and civil were separate. It is all or nothing. So I see a higher probability of finding people guilty (or guilty of one of the lesser crimes charged) who are charged for potential self defense shootings, and then giving a low sentence as the balance if they really think it may have been self defense.

 

[Nutgun]

He screwed himself several ways.

1. Expired permit. Makes his actions illegal.

2. He didn't kill her. A car is considered a deadly weapon if someone is using it to run you over.

 

[Zoogster]

He screwed himself several ways.

1. Expired permit. Makes his actions illegal.

2. He didn't kill her. A car is considered a deadly weapon if someone is using it to run you over.

1. No an expired permit makes him look worse, but does not make self defense illegal, just possession of the firearm if charged.
Quickly looking up the law in Ohio it appears illegal concealed carry of a handgun is a serious misdemeanor?
It is a misdemeanor in many states and a felony in some others.
But that still does not change whether an action was self defense or not, just whether they are guilty of the separate crime of illegal carry (though it may influence the jury's decision).

For example there is felons who are prohibited persons found not guilty in very clear cut self defense (like a home invasion against them), who are then given years for illegal possession of the gun they legally defended themselves with.
(In fact drug dealing felons are some of the most common victims of home invasion robberies, and often legally defend themselves, but get separate weapons charges they are found guilty of.)



2. He may have actually been found guilty of manslaughter or murder for killing a wife he was divorcing after following her and finding her sleeping with another man and then confronting her.
The same exact situation he fired in and was found not guilty may have resulted in being found guilty if she had died, and he would be sitting in prison for a long time instead of trying to pay $49,000.
Instead he was found not guilty firing only a single shot that did not end her life.
Assuming things would have gone better for him if she had died is seriously in error.

In our society when a spouse kills a spouse (never mind when there is clear marital problems and he is secretly following her around, and the other spouse is caught having an affair) there tends to be an automatic assumption it was not self defense.
There is tons of claimed motivation to be found in any marriage, from normal marital problems or arguments, to a rough divorce, to infidelity, etc.
Just planning ahead and having life insurance policies just in case is often claimed as motivation for murder.
Even in a perfect marriage a pretty easy criminal conviction can be had against a man who kills a wife in self defense. If you use lethal force against your spouse, even in defense of your life, you will most likely go to prison.

In fact the only spouses that get any sympathy tend to be wives who claim to have been battered before they killed their husband. They often get off for murder or get really low sentences for the same thing a man would have been given life for.

I would say you are very wrong in your assumption that he would have been better off legally if she died. Even firing more shots may have resulted in conviction in such an unclear case where the jury has a lot of discretion in determining details and motivations.

 

[Nutgun]

Had she killed or injured him with the car (legal deadly weapon, she had a license), what would have happened? Same outcome? Dead people can't sue you for injuries.

 

[Zoogster]

Dead people can't sue you for injuries.

Families of dead people can, it is called wrongful death.

OJ Simpson's trial made most of America aware of this and wrongful death suits have become almost standard ever since.
While most of us know he was guilty now, and knew then, the jury did their duty and feeling some reasonable doubt for whatever reasons did not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Even though I think most of us would have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.)
But also knowing it was very fishy and he was more likely guilty than not, a jury had no problem finding him financially responsible for the vicious stabbing and murder of two people (his wife and her likely lover.)

The result was he was not criminally convicted, but went from a multi-millionaire to a broke guy with almost no money. It certainly was not the dead people who sued him.


(P.S. OJ's acquittal was a very unique situation. LA had also just had the LA Riots not long before after the acquittal of the officers involved in the Rodney King incident.
One of the prime officers involved in the Simpson case was a documented racist.
OJ was black, and there was real fear of more riots if the black community was not happy with the verdict. So in addition to the defense provided by some very high priced lawyers, there was other bias in his favor. Fear of large scale rioting.
Generally if a man kills his wife, even in self defense, he will be found guilty and sent to prison. That is just how it works, and there is claimed motivation to be found in any marriage.)

Had she killed or injured him with the car (legal deadly weapon, she had a license), what would have happened? Same outcome?

Had she killed him with the car she could have gone to prison. If she drove on after one pass probably not, had she turned around or backed up to hit him or try to a second time, certainly.
But she could have as valid a claim to self defense on the first pass as he does. A man with a gun, angry that he just caught his wife having an affair with another man, who clearly had deployed his weapon if he managed to get a shot off.
She would have a very strong defense to be in fear of her life, especially since the husband had secretly followed her.
But there is additionally still some bias regarding males and females in court. For example women get custody of children if all else is equal (they have to have some serious problems for the man to generally get custody), women get spousal support even if both work and make similar paychecks, etc
Similarly men are generally assumed more prone to violence because that is typically the case (without evidence or a history of the woman being violent) and as a result women are in a better position to legally defend their actions after using force against a man than vice versa.
There is still a lot of chivalry in the court system, and a woman using force against a partner is often viewed with a different standard than a man using force.
A woman can even kill her children or her husband in clear murder and get far less than a life sentence in many cases and you can find numerous examples. Post partum depression, claims to have been beaten resulting in battered spouse syndrome, etc being used to excuse even clear criminal behavior, never mind potential self defense.
The reverse is not true. Men tend to go to prison for a life sentence or get the death penalty.


So had she killed or injured him? Based on the circumstances of being followed and confronted by an angry husband with a gun while she was in the middle of having an affair with another man, she would have probably have received no criminal charges. It is quite reasonable for her to be in fear of her life.
She would have probably done much better in the civil case than her husband did too.

It appears she received no criminal charges even though her husband was found not guilty because he claimed to be acting in self defense.
If he was really acting in self defense her actions would have been a crime, but no crime was charged, and the statute of limitations was certainly not up.
So it seems things would have gone much better for her if she had been the one to do killing or injuring. With reasonable doubt even greater for her, and the preponderance of the evidence still more in her favor.

 

[Nutgun]

In a court case an injured person can look more sypathetic than a dead person. They aren't in court looking at a corpse. Court is all one big mind game. The winners play the best.

His case isn't like a home invasion. He did go looking for trouble. He was prepared for trouble because of the gun. The entire thing could have cost easily $100,000 with his first case and the selttlement.

 

[W.E.G.]

Its easier for trouble to find you when you go looking for it.

 

[Zoogster]

In a court case an injured person can look more sypathetic than a dead person. They aren't in court looking at a corpse. Court is all one big mind game. The winners play the best.

His case isn't like a home invasion. He did go looking for trouble. He was prepared for trouble because of the gun. The entire thing could have cost easily $100,000 with his first case and the selttlement.

Your logic is all over the place, and is not following my posts clearly, citing areas out of context.

Yes the guy was quite fortunate he was found not guilty and only lost $49,000.
Intentionally shooting a wife and remaining a free man is a rare event irregardless of the circumstances.

Yes an injured person in court often has more sympathy, but in this case the person was his wife. Had she died he would not likely have won his initial criminal case to even be concerned with his civil case. Because he would be in prison and the bank would be foreclosing on the assets he couldn't pay for anymore, and government taking what was left for taxes he couldn't pay.
While her family would still be free to sue him for wrongful death.


It is quite different than your typical robbery suspect being shot. When your spouse attacks you, anything you can do short of killing them is more likely to have a better outcome. Once they are dead the alleged motivation for the killing can be anything the prosecutor wants, as most relationships have ups and downs, financial issues at times, and other "motives". You may know it was self defense, but nobody else will, and most people will be inclined to believe otherwise. (And this couple had serious marital problems, he was following her, he was armed, he found her cheating with another man, and he chose to confront her armed on the spot.)
I seriously doubt he would have won his criminal case if the charge had been murder and his wife had died or he had emptied his magazine into the car.

 

[Nutgun]

His case would have been stronger if he had some bumper marks on him.

What we don't know is if the court was sypathetic toward her injuries. Maybe the money was to pay for treatment and recouperation.

Not the same if she's dead. No medical bills and rehibilitation. Corpses don't cry and limp in court.

What probably hurts more is she may have gotten a bigger divorce settlement and alimony. If she was dead he would have retained it all. No man has sex unless a woman says they can. She's the guilty party. She made out.

 

[brboyer]

In a court case an injured person can look more sypathetic than a dead person. They aren't in court looking at a corpse. Court is all one big mind game. The winners play the best.

His case isn't like a home invasion. He did go looking for trouble. He was prepared for trouble because of the gun. The entire thing could have cost easily $100,000 with his first case and the selttlement.

Really, people that carry guns are looking for trouble?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Really, people that carry guns are looking for trouble?

You and I and the rest of us here know that honest people who carry guns aren't looking for trouble. But a whole lot of people who don't know anything about guns or who aren't interested in guns are at least somewhat inclined to feel that many people who carry guns are looking for trouble, and if we're ever in court, those are the kinds of people who are likely to be on our jury. It may not be right, and we might not like it; but that's how things can be in real life. We need to know that and be prepared to deal with it.

 

[merlinfire]

Call me crazy, but couldn't he just file counter-suit against her for trying to run him down? Her ability to file the case doesn't really have anything to do with him using a gun if I understand it correctly. He could claim some nice fuzzy civil case reason like "mental anguish" you know, at having a car hurdling at him to kill him.

 

[Girodin]

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

I know. I am always amused when people think if the BG dies that fact alone would preclude civil suit.

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

The typical explanation is that we have less concern making mistakes if we are just dealing with shifting wealth around. Being held civilly liable doesn't have anywhere near the consequences or stigma that a criminal conviction does thus we are okay dealing with what is more likely than not. Since criminal penalties are much weightier and it is the whole government versus a single person we use a higher burdern of proof to protect against wrongful convictions. In criminal cases we would rather the guilty go free than to convict the innocent. In civil cases we don't lose as much sleep over money just changing hands.

Phatty has addressed part of the preclusion issue and the requirement for mutuality but another issue is that for issue preclusion you need to have the same issue and the laws for the tort and the crime are not forcedly the same. For example what constitutes assault civilly may not be the same as what constitutes the criminal version of assault. Another example is negligence civil negligence is oftne a lower standard than criminal negligence. That may or may not be relevant in this case.