[DannyTN]

It always seems to me like many of these civil cases are effectively “double jeopardy”.

It seems to me that if you can’t get a conviction for criminal wrong doing, that you shouldn’t be able to bring a subsequent civil suit for damages at all.

[Jim Noble]

It seems to me that if you can’t get a conviction for criminal wrong doing, that you shouldn’t be able to bring a subsequent civil suit for damages at all

That would require fixing the whole lawsuit process - a good idea, but it will take about forever.

Until then, how about a required jury instruction that the defendant in the lawsuit has already been acquitted by a jury of criminal conduct?

[Mark was here]

Double jeopardy is the State bringing charges again. In a civil suit the State is not bringing the charges. Civil law is not criminal law.

[Still Thinking]

One problem is the difference in burden of proof. In the criminal case it's reasonable doubt, but in a civil case preponderance of evidence. So you might be guilty enough to lose a lawsuit, but not guilty enough to convict of a crime.

I like Jim Noble's idea of a jury instruction, or perhaps in a case like this with a criminal acquittal raise the civil burden of proof from preponderance to clear and convincing (lower than reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance).

[Scotsman will be Free]

Criminal and civil cases have different standards of proof. Civil cases have a lower burden of proof for the plaintiff, so even though a criminal case may not reach the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, the civil case may achieve a positive finish for the “victim.”
A good example of this is the OJ Simpson criminal trial(not guilty) then the civil trial which he lost.