[ml/nj]

There is nothing wrong with pursuing him under the lesser standard of proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

Of course you would say that there is "nothing wrong," you're a lawyer.

But your deciding about reasonable doubts and preponderances of evidence comes after the Supreme Law of the Land at best. The fact is that the intent of the double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment was to prevent a man from having to twice answer charges for any crime associated with one set of facts. Virtually every felony causes damages that might be claimed. I doubt very much that you could cite a case heard while the Framers were still cogent where someone who was acquitted of a crime was nevertheless required to answer for damages caused by that crime.

ML/NJ

[Clump]

Double Jeopardy just as all provisions in the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the Government only!
A private citizen is not barred by Double Jeopardy.
It's the same reason the defendant can be deposed and called as a witness in civil cases.
The 5th Amendment does not restrict private parties.
If a smart mouth kid ever tries to exercise his right to remain silent to his parents, they need to understand that these rights are only rights in the sense that the restrict the government.
I'm not trying to be a smart mouth, but this principle is fundamental to the understanding of constitutional law.