Tony Stewart Case Goes to Grand Jury

[Danno]

so what, now you're going to decide cases by evidence?

Don't tell OJ Simpson!

[Quick GMC]

From the AP:

A few hours after Ontario County District Attorney Michael Tantillo announced the grand jury's decision in this upstate New York hamlet, the Ward family indicated in a statement read over the telephone by sister Kayla Herring that they will seek civil damages in the young driver's death.

The family might have a difficult task: Tantillo disclosed that Ward was under the influence of marijuana the night he died and said two different videos were enhanced, frames were isolated and viewed at at least three different speeds and finally overlaid with grids and data. Both showed Stewart had done nothing wrong.

"The videos did not demonstrate any aberrational driving by Tony Stewart until the point of impact with Kevin Ward, at which point his vehicle veered to the right up the track as a result of the collision. Prior to that, his course was pretty straight," said Tantillo. He added that toxicology evidence from Ward's autopsy "indicates that at the time of operation he was under the influence of marijuana. The levels determined were enough to impair judgment."

well that clears that up then. My apologies to Joe.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Quick GMC

[Tom Geiger]

You know, my Dad is a retired railroader and there were a number of pedestrian or car vs train collisions he was called out to that involved alcohol or other intoxicants and most of the times the driver drove around the gates just as the train was approaching or even drive into the side of a train that's already there! Most of the time they were intoxicated and he thinks some were suicidal and using alcohol as "courage" the railroad as weapon and additional "insurance" money for their families' since the road was always sued for negelegence (couldn't stop the train in time, ect) and then would lose those suits filed against them and have to payup money to the grieving family. Now not only does that cost them money, but if the involved train had perishables and or time sensitive stuff on it, that cost the road money, then having the train upwards of 8 hours late cost them money, having to repair the damage done cost them more money, then even worse, the engineers in the cab get it worse, they get the horrific knowlege that they have killed somebody through no actions of their own...............I'll bet you that there are a number of these folks out there that know exactly how Stewart feels.

My bro-in-law works for a railroad and his cheery job is investigating track fatalities. One story was about kids who literally cut and removed a lot of barbed wire to get access to an abandoned trestle so they could drive ATVs across. Of course it was abandoned for a reason and one of them fell to his death. Guess whose mommy and daddy became millionaires ?

[Tom Geiger]

Depends on which side has the more clever lawyers.

Here we go again with the OJ trials... found innocent of murder but still lost the civil suit

[D. Battista]

Ontario County (N.Y.) District Attorney Michael Tantillo said on Wednesday that neither of the enhanced videos from last month’s Sprint Car race in upstate New York shows Tony Stewart driving recklessly when he hits and kills Kevin Ward Jr. In clearing Stewart of criminal charges, Tantillo said a second, unreleased video shows “no aberrational driving” by Stewart. He added, “[The two tapes] were pretty important pieces of evidence.”

Before taking questions, Tantillo made this statement:

“This week, an Ontario County grand jury has been meeting to hear testimony and review evidence gathered in the Tony Stewart matter, relating to the death of Kevin Ward. The grand jury has completed its investigation. During the course of the presentation, approximately two dozen witnesses testified. These included a number of race-car drivers, racetrack employees and volunteers, two accident reconstruction experts, medical personnel and a number of police officers. The grand jury reviewed a number of photographs and video recordings, as well as other documentary evidence. After listening to and questioning all of the witnesses, and reviewing all of the evidence, the grand jury has determined there is no basis to charge Tony Stewart with any crimes.”

As it should be...!

[Greg Myers]

This Criminal Court / Civil Court thing seems like double jeopardy to me.

[mikemodeler]

This Criminal Court / Civil Court thing seems like double jeopardy to me.

Not really Greg. Look at the O.J. Simpson case for an example where one can be "innocent" in one court and guilty in the other. The burden of proof in a civil trial is much lower.

What will be interesting is if the civil case ever makes it to a courtroom as many times there are out of court settlements. As hard as it is for all involved, a civil case that goes to trial will likely bring up the past of both individuals and a lot of dirty laundry might get aired that reveals things about them we either didn't know or had forgotten. In light of the disclosure yesterday that there was marijuana in the victim's system and enough to be considered "impaired", one could argue that he contributed to his own death by using illegal drugs and may have been in violation of track rules.

Regardless, what happened was avoidable and lives were changed as a result. I am sure if both Tony Stewart and Kevin Ward Jr. could have a "do over", this might not have happened.

[Harry P.]

This Criminal Court / Civil Court thing seems like double jeopardy to me.

I agree. I've never understood this concept.

If you are found "not guilty" in a criminal trial, shouldn't that be the end of it? Right or wrong, the verdict has been delivered. So how is it that a person found "not guilty" can still be sued for the crime they have been found not guilty of?

I mean, if you're "not guilty," shouldn't that end it?

Again, right or wrong.... the verdict rendered should mean something, shouldn't it? Otherwise, what's the point of standing trial in the first place if the verdict doesn't mean anything?

[D. Battista]

I agree. I've never understood this concept.

If you are found "not guilty" in a criminal trial, shouldn't that be the end of it? Right or wrong, the verdict has been delivered. So how is it that a person found "not guilty" can still be sued for the crime they have been found not guilty of?

I mean, if you're "not guilty," shouldn't that end it?

Again, right or wrong.... the verdict rendered should mean something, shouldn't it? Otherwise, what's the point of standing trial in the first place if the verdict doesn't mean anything?

I agree... "not guilty" should mean that.. End of story...! That is..... being held financially or legally responsible. It was a horrible accident that should of never happened. It was tragic bad choice for the kid to get out of his car. Which took his life and changed so many other lives.

My heart goes out for all involved.

...it has touched all our lives too..!

Edited September 27, 2014 by Davemodeltech

[slusher]

I agree... "not guilty" should mean that.. End of story...!

I always felt the same way. If you go to jail they don't sue you but if your not guilty you get sued...

[bobthehobbyguy]

The criminal part just says there was no criminal intent. The civil is determining if the persons actions contributed to the persons death. However it seems that in this case Wards actions put himself. in harms way. Given the circumstances it not a surprise that Ward got hit. Unfortunately I doubt that the family is going to see it that way and there are enough sleazy lawyers that will take the case no doubt going for an out of court settlement.

[johnbuzzed]

Well, I heard on the race broadcast and on-line at ESPN, that toxicology reports indicate that traces of cannabis was found in Kevin Ward's "system". Not the brightest thing to do when you wanna drive a racecar.

[johnbuzzed]

I agree. I've never understood this concept.

If you are found "not guilty" in a criminal trial, shouldn't that be the end of it? Right or wrong, the verdict has been delivered. So how is it that a person found "not guilty" can still be sued for the crime they have been found not guilty of?

I mean, if you're "not guilty," shouldn't that end it?

Again, right or wrong.... the verdict rendered should mean something, shouldn't it? Otherwise, what's the point of standing trial in the first place if the verdict doesn't mean anything?

Harry, I remember a story some years ago where some yutz was trying to break into a school, via the roof. He fell, IIRC, thru a skylight and sued the school. I don't remember the outcome or results.

BTW, I'm diggin' your atavar.

[Harry P.]

I've heard similar cases... a burglar breaks into a house, the homeowner shots the burglar, the burglar sues the homeowner. It's crazy.

[Danno]

I agree. I've never understood this concept.

If you are found "not guilty" in a criminal trial, shouldn't that be the end of it? Right or wrong, the verdict has been delivered. So how is it that a person found "not guilty" can still be sued for the crime they have been found not guilty of?

I mean, if you're "not guilty," shouldn't that end it?

Again, right or wrong.... the verdict rendered should mean something, shouldn't it? Otherwise, what's the point of standing trial in the first place if the verdict doesn't mean anything?

Tony Stewart did not stand trial and he was not found 'not guilty.'

The results and findings of the investigation were presented to a grand jury (much different than a trial jury). The grand jury decided not to file criminal charges.

The prosecutor was not willing to file criminal charges on his own (which is his job and he has the power to do, independent of a grand jury indictment).

So, Tony Stewart has never been charged criminally and has never stood trial on criminal charges arising from this situation, therefore cannot be deemed to have been found 'not guilty' of charges he never faced.

Even so, 'double jeopardy' is a short-hand term for the legal protection against being charged criminally and tried criminally more than once for a specific crime. It has nothing to do whatsoever with civil liability. It just means if you are tried criminally and acquitted, you cannot be charged criminally again for the same crime.

Civil liability is a separate matter. You might be responsible for someone else's damages even though what you did was not a crime or if it was a crime, you were not charged with it or you may even have avoided conviction for it. It is not at all uncommon for someone to be sued civilly for actions that did not for any number of reasons rise to the level of being or constituting a crime. Just like it is not uncommon to be convicted of a crime but no civil liability was involved.

They are two totally different things.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Danno

[Harry P.]

I realize that Tony Stewart has never been put on trial, or even criminally charged at all. I was specifically answering Greg's criminal court/civil court comment. I don't understand how, if you are found "not guilty" of a criminal charge, you can then be sued in civil court for damages related to an action you have been found "not guilty" of!

It would make more sense to me if you could be sued for damages only if you are found guilty of the charge in the first place. You are found "guilty" of an offense, so logically, the victim or the victim's family can now sue you for damages due to the fact that you have been found "guilty" of committing said crime. Allowing a person who has been found "not guilty" of a crime to then be sued and possibly be required to pay damages related to a crime he/she has just been found "not guilty" of makes no sense to me. How is it that you can be found "not guilty" of committing a crime, yet then be held liable for damages related to that crime?

Makes no sense to me.

[DrGlueblob]

Harry, I'm not a lawyer, but in a civil case, it's not about "guilty" per se, but the percentage of culpability of all parties involved.

They might find Stewart ..say, 30% culpable (JUST CONJECTURE, FOLKS).. He might then get hit with monetary damages for whatever the jury decides.

[Danno]

I realize that Tony Stewart has never been put on trial, or even criminally charged at all. I was specifically answering Greg's criminal court/civil court comment. I don't understand how, if you are found "not guilty" of a criminal charge, you can then be sued in civil court for damages related to an action you have been found "not guilty" of!

It would make more sense to me if you could be sued for damages only if you are found guilty of the charge in the first place. You are found "guilty" of an offense, so logically, the victim or the victim's family can now sue you for damages due to the fact that you have been found "guilty" of committing said crime. Allowing a person who has been found "not guilty" of a crime to then be sued and possibly be required to pay damages related to a crime he/she has just been found "not guilty" of makes no sense to me. How is it that you can be found "not guilty" of committing a crime, yet then be held liable for damages related to that crime?

Makes no sense to me.

They are two separate things. Similar but separate. Apples and oranges. It's like oil and gasoline. Both are required to operate a vehicle, both are petroleum distillates, both are liquids, both are available at a service station, but they are different. You can't put oil in the fuel tank and expect the vehicle to run, and you can't put gasoline in the crankcase and expect it to adequately lubricate the internal moving parts.

It would make more sense to me if you could be sued for damages only if you are found guilty of the charge in the first place. If that requirement was in place, you could not be sued for civil torts, such as accidentally colliding with another vehicle, even though you failed to see the other vehicle. Or, if your dog bit someone on the street. Or, if your house caught fire and the fire spread to your neighbor's house. Or, you couldn't sue a doctor who left a forcep in your gut while performing surgery. Or, you couldn't sue the neighbor whose tree fell on your roof. You get the picture; there are innumerable ways you can owe a civil tort (or, liability debt) to someone else without breaking a law. Civil liability is different than criminal activity.

And, proving civil liability by "a preponderance of the evidence" requires different elements than proving criminal intent "beyond a reasonable doubt." Because they are different, and the legal procedures are different, they cannot be tied together.

By way of example, a driver can be convicted of reckless driving whether or not anyone was injured or damaged. But, just because the driver was not convicted of reckless driving does not make him immune from his civil liability if he did injure or damage someone else. Perhaps there was not enough evidence to convict him "beyond a reasonable doubt" of reckless driving, but there was more than enough evidence to prove "by a preponderance of the evidence" that he was driving recklessly when he injured the other person or damaged the other person's property.

Just ask OJ. The criminal jury decided there was not enough evidence to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he deliberately or intentionally killed Nicole. But, a civil jury, hearing the evidence applied under the different criteria of act/damages/responsibility-liability found there was more than "a preponderance of evidence" that he was responsible for her death.

By way of helping follow this:

"A Preponderance of Evidence" means in simple terms, more than the other. In other words, 51% or more is a preponderance, 50%-50% is a dead even tie, and 49% is less than a preponderance.

"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" means a reasonable person would not have doubt. This is a tough one to explain, and the courts have been arguing it for years. Basically, it doesn't require that there be NO DOUBT, nor does it require that there be ANY DOUBT, and it doesn't require that NO ONE can have NO DOUBT, ANY DOUBT, or even just DOUBT. But it does require that a REASONABLE person would conclude without A REASONABLE DOUBT that a hypothesis is fact. Some theorists try to say 'Reasonable Doubt' would consist of a 1% to 5% value for Doubt, but courts refuse to adopt a percentage of evidence of a fact that would constitute 'reasonable doubt' for the purposes of conviction/exoneration.

And, just to throw another legal concept factoid onto the fire: There is a difference between being exonerated, found not guilty, not being charged, and having an 'insufficient evidence' ruling.

Not being charged means no prosecution was initiated whether or not there was any evidence to support charges; there is no defendant.

Insufficient evidence means that at the present time there was not enough evidence established to support filing of charges against a defendant.

Being found not guilty can mean anything from the prosecutor failed to prove the charge or the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt or for any number of reasons, the judge or jury did not want to convict the defendant for any number of reasons, including sympathy, jury nullification, or celebrity status overriding evidence.

Exoneration means the evidence proved the defendant did nothing wrong in the first place.

[Danno]

Harry, I'm not a lawyer, but in a civil case, it's not about "guilty" per se, but the percentage of culpability of all parties involved.

They might find Stewart ..say, 30% culpable (JUST CONJECTURE, FOLKS).. He might then get hit with monetary damages for whatever the jury decides.

Correct. A jury might decide that Ward's actions contributed to the incident, but Stewart's actions did also. A jury might decide that if Stewart did nothing wrong, but Ward's intoxication contributed 30% to his death, then they would award nothing to Ward from Stewart. But, if a jury decides Stewart was 70% responsible for Ward's death, and Ward's intoxication contributed 30% to his own death, then they would award Ward's family about 70% of the damages deemed appropriate. If Ward's family's attorneys show his life was worth $100 million, then the jury might award his family anywhere up to $70 million but no more.

Yes. It's all very complicated, but it's been evolving over 238 years.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Despite that this seems wrong to be able to persue civil when there are no criminal charges it would be a bad thing to change it. For example the current GM mess over ignition swtches and the deaths involved. It is unlikely GM would be charged criminally -hard to prove there was criminal intent. However they should be charged with civil charges be cause of there inaction.

[Danno]

Despite that this seems wrong to be able to persue civil when there are no criminal charges it would be a bad thing to change it. For example the current GM mess over ignition swtches and the deaths involved. It is unlikely GM would be charged criminally -hard to prove there was criminal intent. However they should be charged with civil charges be cause of there inaction.

That's not a bad example!

No GM exec ever decided to cut corners on ignition switches or Corvair suspension designs KNOWING anybody would die. Thus, no criminal act.

But, recklessly gambling on the odds of adverse effects could be a civil tort.

If you couldn't sue unless they were convicted of a crime, few people would ever be held accountable for their decisions.

[Harry P.]

You guys are answering a question I didn't ask.

I understand how suing for damages works. You can sue GM even though they have not been charged with a crime. I get that. What I was saying is that if you have been found not guilty of a specific criminal charge, then you shouldn't have to face punishment in another court for the same charge you have been found not guilty of. Only if you have been found guilty of a crime should you also have to face possible monetary punishment for that same crime.

What I don't get is how you can be "punished" (sued for damages) in civil court for the same action you have been found not guilty of in criminal court.

In the case of say, suing a doctor for malpractice, the doctor hasn't been charged with a crime, and no decision has been rendered in a criminal court. So yeah, go ahead and sue him for damages, and good luck to you.

What I'm saying is if that doctor had gone on trial for a crime, and been found not guilty of that crime, I find it completely unfair that that doctor can then still be punished in a civil court, in another trial, for the crime he has been found not guilty of! In other words, even though he been found not guilty of the offense in court A, court B can still punish him for the same offense he was found not guilty of in court A!

Not guilty should mean not guilty. Not "well, not guilty in this trial, but now you have to go and prove your innocence all over again for the same offense in another trial. If you have stood trial for a criminal offense and the prosecution has failed to prove their charges against you, and the jury has found you not guilty of that offense, another court should not be given another shot at you for that same offense. If you were found not guilty, it shouldn't be that you can still be found "culpable" or "responsible" for that offense in a second trial.

Sorry, that just doesn't seem right. Not guilty should mean just that. Not guilty, end of prosecution.

[Danno]

You guys are answering a question I didn't ask.

I understand how suing for damages works. You can sue GM even though they have not been charged with a crime. I get that. What I was saying is that if you have been found not guilty of a specific criminal charge, then you shouldn't have to face punishment in another court for the same charge you have been found not guilty of. Only if you have been found guilty of a crime should you also have to face possible monetary punishment for that same crime.

What I don't get is how you can be "punished" (sued for damages) in civil court for the same action you have been found not guilty of in criminal court.

In the case of say, suing a doctor for malpractice, the doctor hasn't been charged with a crime, and no decision has been rendered in a criminal court. So yeah, go ahead and sue him for damages, and good luck to you.

What I'm saying is if that doctor had gone on trial for a crime, and been found not guilty of that crime, I find it completely unfair that that doctor can then still be punished in a civil court, in another trial, for the crime he has been found not guilty of! In other words, even though he been found not guilty of the offense in court A, court B can still punish him for the same offense he was found not guilty of in court A!

Not guilty should mean not guilty. Not "well, not guilty in this trial, but now you have to go and prove your innocence all over again for the same offense in another trial. If you have stood trial for a criminal offense and the prosecution has failed to prove their charges against you, and the jury has found you not guilty of that offense, another court should not be given another shot at you for that same offense. If you were found not guilty, it shouldn't be that you can still be found "culpable" or "responsible" for that offense in a second trial.

Sorry, that just doesn't seem right. Not guilty should mean just that. Not guilty, end of prosecution.

It is the same question, Harry.

But you're tying civil responsibility to criminal conviction. Being sued civilly for responsibility is NOT the same as being not being convicted of a crime, even if it arises from the same fact circumstance. They are two totally different and separate things.

First of all, Tony Stewart was not found not guilty. He's never been tried, either civilly for responsibility or criminally for guilt of committing a crime. So your objection doesn't stand in this instance.

Secondly, being sued for damages civilly owed is not being punished. Nor is it being prosecuted.

The fallacy of your objection is in equating a civil tort with a criminal act. Both can arise from a single event, but they are not the same. Criminal acts have different elements than civil torts. Being found 'not guilty' in a criminal prosecution is the end of prosecution.

Being sued civilly for damages is not punishment for a crime, it is being held responsible for the financial and economic consequences of one's actions, independent of any criminal activity or lack thereof. Being found not guilty of a criminal act does not relieve a person of the responsibility for his/her actions.

Besides, again, no jury has ever found Tony Stewart not guilty of anything in this matter.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Danno

[Harry P.]

I get it as far as Tony Stewart. I get it that he hasn't been charged with anything. That's not the point. I wasn't talking about Tony Stewart's case.

I'm talking about Greg's point that, as a general observation, it seems like the criminal trial/civil trial seems like double jeopardy.

You say that "Being sued civilly for damages is not punishment for a crime, it is being held responsible for the financial and economic consequences of one's actions, independent of any criminal activity or lack thereof."

But in the specific case where you have been found "not guilty" of a crime, how can you then be held "responsible for your actions" if you have been found not guilty of those actions???

Example: Tom is accused of murdering Joe. Tom stands trial for Joe's murder, prosecution fails to prove Tom killed Joe, jury renders a "not guilty" verdict, Tom is free to go.

But Joe's family sues Tom, and now a civil court can find Tom "responsible" or "culpable" or "liable" or whatever the legal term would be for Joe's death, and Tom can be punished (or whatever word you prefer to use besides "punished") monetarily for Joe's death, even though Tom was found not guilty of Joe's death.

No matter how you spin it, that, conceptually, is not fair.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Correct. A jury might decide that Ward's actions contributed to the incident, but Stewart's actions did also. A jury might decide that if Stewart did nothing wrong, but Ward's intoxication contributed 30% to his death, then they would award nothing to Ward from Stewart. But, if a jury decides Stewart was 70% responsible for Ward's death, and Ward's intoxication contributed 30% to his own death, then they would award Ward's family about 70% of the damages deemed appropriate. If Ward's family's attorneys show his life was worth $100 million, then the jury might award his family anywhere up to $70 million but no more.

Yes. It's all very complicated, but it's been evolving over 238 years.

Also there is another party involved in this that hasn't been mentioned the sanctioning body for the race. When ward got out of the car the race should have been red flagged. He presented a hazard to himself and also could potentially cause more accidents from drivers trying to avoid him.

I want to state again. The civil and criminal courts are 2 separate enties. The civil determines the contribution to creating the damages and the criminal which is the criminal intent. The grand jury is another important part they determine if there is enough evidence to persue the criminal part. This system is valid and should not be changed.