4 ms·
> This is, to give an analogy, in the same space as OJ Simpson being found guilty of wrongful death and innocent of murder, for committing the same actions, and
by leereeves 2y ago
> This is, to give an analogy, in the same space as OJ Simpson being found guilty of wrongful death and innocent of murder, for committing the same actions, and the fact that he could be tried for both not being a case of double jeopardy.
OJ wasn't "found guilty of wrongful death". He was found liable, because that was a civil case, not a criminal one. That difference is also why double jeopardy didn't apply.
I can't really discuss due process with someone who doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law.
- shadowgovt 2y agoYou are correct, which highlights the way in which common sense can deviate from the actual application of law in an English-common-law-derived system. The common sense idea would be that investigating the same fact pattern twice would be trying the same crime twice. The actual law does not agree with that assessment for the reason you have indicated. Due process doesn't prevent you from being found innocent of a crime and liable on a civil case on the same set of actions, and it (apparently) doesn't prevent you from being found guilty of falsifying documents to attempt a crime without requiring the jury to agree on what crime was attempted.