Bubbalo wrote:
B.Schuss wrote:
I never undersrood how he could be found not guilty in the criminal case, but liable for the same crime on a private level. Never made sense to me.
Different burden of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "on the balance of probabilities" respectively.
wow, you mean in the civil lawsuit, he was found guilty, based on "high probability" ? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. There is either enough cold hard proof, or there isn't. How can you find someone guilty based on probabilities ?
Isn't there a rule in the US that you cannot be tried for the same crime twice ? Or does that only apply to criminal lawsuits ?
Sometimes the US juidical system amazes me...