Tony Stewart Case Goes to Grand Jury

[Danno]

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.

But even in that instance, Tom's actions may not have met the criteria for criminal conviction, or a criminal trial jury may not have wanted to convict Tom, but his acts caused Joe's death. Joe's family is entitled to sue Tom civilly for depriving them of the enjoyment of the rest of Joe's lifetime. That's what is called a 'wrongful death' case. Has nothing to do with whether Tom killed Joe deliberately (1st degree murder) or intentionally (2nd degree murder) or even recklessly (manslaughter). It may be that Tom was negligent in causing Joe's death or failed to perform a duty he had to Joe without due regard for his actions (both of these could be voluntary homicide or involuntary homicide.

Here's an example that may be clearer in concept: Tom goes to a party to celebrate Harry's new avatar. Tom gets drunk at the party, hosted by Debra. Debra doesn't stop Tom from driving home, even though she's been pouring him drinks non-stop for hours. Tom drives home, but fails to realize Joe is walking across the street. Tom hits Joe, killing him. Tom didn't mean to kill him and Tom was driving within the speed limit and within his lane, but the collision of his car with Joe resulted in Joe's death. Tom was arrested for DUI and vehicular homicide, but Tom did not drink with the intention of getting drunk enough to kill Joe. During the trial, it was discovered the blood evidence was drawn improperly and contaminated, so the BAC was inadmissible. Since there was insufficient evidence to prove Tom was intoxicated beyond the legal limit, and since Tom did nothing else wrong (no other traffic infraction, he just didn't see Joe), the jury decided that Tom was not guilty of DUI or vehicular homicide.

That, however, did not mean Tom had no responsibility for Joe's death. Joe's family sued Tom for wrongful death. A civil jury can find Tom's acts of drinking too much caused him to fail to see Joe and caused Joe to die, even if Tom was not convicted of DUI, but was found not guilty of DUI because the BAC evidence was not admissible in criminal court.

It's sometimes more confusing than others, but it all explains why there are judges and lawyers.

By the way, nobody ever said life was fair, no one ever said fairness of life was a right, and the constitution does not guarantee life will be fair.

The constitution only sets forth that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, not a fair outcome.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Criminal and civil are 2 different courts with different objectives. Criminal is by the people with the purpose of testing to see if the law has been broken and if it to issue punishment. Civil is for the family to gain restitution. Criminal must be determined beyond a reasonable doubt whereas civil is the percentage of fault and restitution.

It creates the appearance of being tried for the same thing twice but that is not true because of the purpose of the courts are different.

Big business would love if the system would change because they wouldn't be responsible for their actions

[Harry P.]

The constitution only sets forth that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, not a fair outcome.

And if you are found "not guilty" in that trial, that should be the end of it. You should not have to stand trial again, for the same offense, in a civil court too.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Harry you are not being tried for the same offense twice. If you denied the civil then you would be denying the family the right to restitution for their loss.

See my post before yours for more comments.

[Joe Handley]

And if you are found "not guilty" in that trial, that should be the end of it. You should not have to stand trial again, for the same offense, in a civil court too.

Not only that, but the part that bothers me is that this would be the equivalent me running into somebody who wandered out infront of my Jeep on a dark road and even though the police would probably find me innocent, the next of kin coming after me because I hit the person and possibly because the brakes on Jeeps of that generation kinda suck in the best of circumstances.............

[Harry P.]

Harry you are not being tried for the same offense twice. If you denied the civil then you would be denying the family the right to restitution for their loss.

See my post before yours for more comments.

Why should I be held liable for a "loss" that I was found NOT GUILTY of causing?

[kalbert]

You were found not guilty of a criminal offense, not causing (or having some role in) the event. You're still mixing crime and responsibility together. They are handled as separate things.

Edited September 30, 2014 by kalbert

[bobthehobbyguy]

Why should I be held liable for a "loss" that I was found NOT GUILTY of causing?

Harry the criminal court determines that you did not have criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Grand jury only determined if enough evidence to pursue a criminal trail. In this case Tony did not intentionally run down Ward, at least there was no evidence to support that. Tony still did hit Ward and contribute to his death. Civil determines how much Tony contributed to Wards death.

Again this are two different things being considered. This is not being tried twice for the same offense.

Again you can be liable for the death regardless if of whether the criminal aspect is there.

[Harry P.]

But I'm not talking about a grand jury! Or Tony Stewart!

I can only restate the point I'm trying to get across to you guys so many times.

I give up.

[Longbox55]

I got what you're saying, Harry. And I agree 100%.

[Harry P.]

I got what you're saying, Harry. And I agree 100%.

Thank God somebody gets the point I'm trying to make! Agree or disagree with me, but at least you get what I'm saying!

I don't know why my point is lost on the others... I've explained it every way I can think of. They keep replying to issues that I didn't bring up...

[bobthehobbyguy]

Harry the majority doesn't get your point because you are wrong.

There are two questions being asked here. First did you act with criminal intent? The second question is were you responsible in some part for the event. These are two separate issues. The criminal parts deals with should a party be punished for their actions. The second case what are you liable for because of your actions. Just because you didn't commit a crime does not absolve one of the liability of your actions.

Example I am playing catch with my son and the ball breaks your Window. You think on broke your window on purpose but it can be proved that it wasn't the case. I still broke your window so I have compensate you for your broken window. By your logic I wouldn't have to pay for your broken window.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Why should I be held liable for a "loss" that I was found NOT GUILTY of causing?

The criminal court is not determining if you caused the action they are determining if one you have comitted a crime. If you caused a loss then are resposible for making restitution for the part of the damage you caused by your actions.

[Danno]

Thank God somebody gets the point I'm trying to make! Agree or disagree with me, but at least you get what I'm saying!

I don't know why my point is lost on the others... I've explained it every way I can think of. They keep replying to issues that I didn't bring up...

Harry, I got the point of what you were saying . . . each time you said it. Your point wasn't lost . . . but you were/are mixing apples and oranges and expecting them to be the same thing. They are not.

The replies you say are issues you didn't bring up are/were attempts to explain or illustrate the differences. Apples and oranges; civil law and criminal law; lacquer and enamel. Similar but different, Not interdependent.

Double jeopardy only exists within criminal law. There is no double jeopardy between criminal law and civil law. Like it or not, they are two distinctly separate matters.

[slusher]

Why should I be held liable for a "loss" that I was found NOT GUILTY of causing?

I Agree with Harry. Now in todays world you can be tried twice. The law should be changed that not guilty should go across legal and civil.

[DonW]

As we say over here, 'The law is an ass'.

[Agent G]

Let me put this in another way. I conduct an intensive months long investigation into an "arson for profit" case. Evidence points to a hand set fire of dubious origin. Bottom line, that fire should not have started where it did in the way it did. Now combine that with a history of suspicious fires at previous businesses and you have "reasonable suspicion" for arson for profit. The criminal investigation stalls for a variety of reasons. Mainly there is lack of evidence pointing to the actual fire setter, or no "probable cause" to arrest a suspect.

Now you have the insurance claim, this is the motive for the fire in the first place. REMEMBER this is civil litigation. The threshhold for "proof" if you will, is lower. Take what is not adequate enough for criminal prosecution and use it deny a large claim in civil court.

Folks this is a win. By denying the claim YOUR money is saved, my money is saved and our rates can be prevented from skyrocketing.

Harry by your argument the owner should be awarded the large claim. Guess where our rates would be now if we didn't have civil litigation?

G

[DonW]

Let me put this in another way. I conduct an intensive months long investigation into an "arson for profit" case. Evidence points to a hand set fire of dubious origin. Bottom line, that fire should not have started where it did in the way it did. Now combine that with a history of suspicious fires at previous businesses and you have "reasonable suspicion" for arson for profit. The criminal investigation stalls for a variety of reasons. Mainly there is lack of evidence pointing to the actual fire setter, or no "probable cause" to arrest a suspect.

Now you have the insurance claim, this is the motive for the fire in the first place. REMEMBER this is civil litigation. The threshhold for "proof" if you will, is lower. Take what is not adequate enough for criminal prosecution and use it deny a large claim in civil court.

Folks this is a win. By denying the claim YOUR money is saved, my money is saved and our rates can be prevented from skyrocketing.

Harry by your argument the owner should be awarded the large claim. Guess where our rates would be now if we didn't have civil litigation?

G

Wayne, I take your point and agree it probably works out for the best most of the time - but it still seems illogical that there be differing thresholds for establishing guilt / liability in the criminal vs. the civil courts. I studied law at university but gave up when I discovered that practising as a lawyer had little to do with 'truth and justice' and a lot to do with trying to ensure your client wins the case (prosecution or defence).

[Ace-Garageguy]

I certainly understand Harry's assertion that being tried twice for the same offence, albeit in different courts with different agendas, does seem like double-jeopardy. I've thought this myself on occasion.

I also recognize the subtle difference between being found guilty of a criminal offence as defined by law, and being held financially responsible for the consequences of an act that is not by definition "criminal", but still is, let's say, irresponsible, careless or reckless (but NOT defined as criminal behavior), and has led to another human being's serious loss.

I also agree with DonW's assertion that, from most lawyers' point of view, the law simply supplies the basis for complex word-games that have little to do with truth and justice, everything to do with "winning". Please note I said "most", not "all". I've dealt with lawyers on both sides of this particular moral fence. It's apparently sometimes hard to keep to the moral high-ground when the money is in the sewer.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy

[DonW]

Money, so they say, is the root of all evil today!

[Greg Myers]

and after reading through all of this I still feel the same way. " the law simply supplies the basis for complex word-games that have little to do with truth and justice", allowing people to "Blame" someone.

[Dave Van]

I get it Bob.........

Harry I see your side too.....but it's not how our system works.

If any one feels strong enough there are methods to change things.....but that will consume the rest of your life.

[mikemodeler]

Example I am playing catch with my son and the ball breaks your Window. You think on broke your window on purpose but it can be proved that it wasn't the case. I still broke your window so I have compensate you for your broken window. By your logic I wouldn't have to pay for your broken window.

I think this nails it.

I agree that it seems like double jeopardy Harry, but they are not the same type of case.

I think some tort reform is needed in this country, but the lobbyists for trial lawyers will probably not never let that happen.

[Tom Geiger]

the law simply supplies the basis for complex word-games that have little to do with truth and justice", allowing people to "Blame" someone.

It's the American way. That's why the clear plastic bag from the dry cleaners has a warning label "Do Not Place Over Head". Yea, you know somebody won that lawsuit.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Same thing with microwave popcorn contents may be hot(really ). However these are the cases that have been abused which require tort reform.