What the government can and can not do is based on state law. In OJ’s case, since the criminal trial had already been held, he was not going to give anything up as a result of the civil case. In this case, apparently, the prosecutor thought that not prosecuting criminally would enhance the win probability of the civil case. He also reasoned he didn’t meet the standard required for a win in a criminal case. He was doing what he thought would be the best given that the civil case would have been weak.
So you’re saying that the prosecutor acted in favor of the civil Litigant? He deffered criminal prosecution to benefit a civil action?
Is that his job?
I’m not sure if I’m making my point clear. The criminal proceedings should have been blind to any civil proceedings.