Just curius how the law works

[Briel]

I don't want to start a controversy as this is not the right site, but I had a question, and I know some of our members are in the profession.

I don't watch sports, and in the Kobe case I don't know who to believe, but something seemed strange to me in a news article.

If Mr Bryant is found not guilty, or the case is just dropped, I don't understand how he can be sued. It seems the defendant would have to sue the court for the mistakes that revealed her identity instead.

Is it impossible to sue the court? It just seems silly to me that you can still sue if someone isn't proven or convicted guilty. I do understand that the court snafus were stupid and inexcusable. A couple of people should be fired for mishandling sensitive information.

If anything it seems like the news media conglomerates could be sued for outing her name in a bid for ratings over the defendant's civil rights. The defendant isn't even asking for that much money considering the profile of the case.

So like I said. I'm not on either side of the specific case. Just curious as to how suing seems to sidestep what would otherwise be double jeopardy (as I understand it) in this and some other cases in the news media I have seen.

Thanks for your time. Please no mudslinging on the specific case or the thread will get shut down. Just looking for a clinical answer.

[de4dp00l]

Same thing happened with OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty in criminal court, but was found guilty in a civil suit.

There's different standards for a criminal vs. a civil trial, and a civil suit requires a far lesser standard of proof to decide.

I'm sure that some of the better educated folks on the board can explain it better - I'm not a lawyer, I'm just engaged to one.

[Ro-gan]

Originally posted by de4dp00l
Same thing happened with OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty in criminal court, but was found guilty in a civil suit.

There's different standards for a criminal vs. a civil trial, and a civil suit requires a far lesser standard of proof to decide.

I'm sure that some of the better educated folks on the board can explain it better - I'm not a lawyer, I'm just engaged to one.

You nailed it pretty good.

Also, there is no double jeopardy when you go from criminal to civil. They are two different "monsters."

Civil cases are far more easier to prove also. You don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Any way you look at it, though, is that the legal system is blind (like the statue of Justice) and the only people that benefit are the attorneys.

I am going through one HECK of a divorce and custody battle for my son (see me sig link for pics of him) and my attorney and her's are getting RICH!

[Briel]

Ro-gan lives! I hope you get your son. Good luck.

[garlinghouse]

Double Jeopardy refers to the part of the Constitution that says no person may be tried twice for the same crime. Emphasis on crime. It does not apply to civil suits.

Any assault, including sexual assault, is a crime. The state can prosecute a defendant for it and try to put the defendant in jail. It is also a civil wrong, what is called a tort.

In civil court, you can sue a person who subjects you to an assault, which means harmful or offensive unwanted contact.

In criminal court, where they can lock you up or even kill you, the burden of proof is very high: beyond a reasonable doubt.

In civil court, where they are just taking money from you, the burden is much lower, generally preponderance of the evidence, meaning is it more likely than not that the defendant committed the tort such as assault, or in OJ's case, wrongful death.

[MeatLoafX]

As an attorney, I'll pretty much verify what was said before. There is no "double jeopardy" issue if you are tried in the criminal system and then sued in the civil system. Double jeopardy is a strictly criminal concept (although in civil courts, you have issues of preclusion, but that's a whole other topic)

The standard of proof is also different - civil is a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. more likely than not) for most civil actions. In criminal cases, it's beyond a reasonable doubt (the highest standard in the law).

To me, the most interesting thing about the Kobe case so far is that the media makes it sound like the woman has a choice about whether the criminal case goes forward. It's the State's decision - not hers - and they can go forward and order her to testify whether she wants to or not. Now, there are other concerns there, but as a prosecuting attorney, it's always frustrating to hear people talk about "dropping charges" when they have no authority to do so... sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.

As for the question about whether it's possible to sue the court, the answer is technically "yes" but good luck trying. If you want to sue them for negligence, then no, but if they abuse their position and maliciously prosecute someone, then they *may* be liable.

[Ro-gan]

I never died, Briel. :laugh:

My job finally cut down on Internet access/usage and HCR is one of the MANY sites banned. That was when I had the most time to get online.

When I am home or off work I usually have tons of normal everyday things to do that I can't find the time to get online.

I just finished up my last midnighter this morning so I will be off until Monday morning. I actually have time (well, not really, but I am too tired to do housework) right now to stay online for a bit.

[capfan]

You control how rich your lawyers get in a divorce case. The more the two of you decide to fight, the more you pay. If the two of you can think about the best interests of the children and reach agreements about custody, support and visitation fairly quickly you can use that lawyer money on your kids.

[Briel]

You know if you got your supervisor hooked on playing Clix you could probably get that ban lifted. LOL!

But seriously. Thanks for all the answers and clarifications.

While we still have the best system in the world even with all it's flaws, I still sometimes fear to leave the apartment and make eye contact with anyone. LOL!

Well not really.

[Ro-gan]

Originally posted by capfan
You control how rich your lawyers get in a divorce case. The more the two of you decide to fight, the more you pay. If the two of you can think about the best interests of the children and reach agreements about custody, support and visitation fairly quickly you can use that lawyer money on your kids.

You have no idea how I wish it was that easy.

It came to the point I HAD to sue for custody because she was never letting me see my son. And when she did it was always under hidden agendas/conditions on her part. I.E.: If you give me this you can see him, otherwise no seeing him.

She even called up my job and made a fake suicide complaint against me so she could keep sole custody. That was about one week after I told her I might be suing for custody.

Back in November I was finally able to prove (at least to me anyways) that she was cheating on me with someone who I considered a very close friend for about 2 years or more. Needless to say he is no longer considered a friend.

I've been giving in every which way, but she is so callous and spiteful and just evil that she won't let me see my son at all. She even went so far as to defy a court order. But, because the Justice System is so slow and just doesn't care nothing has been done about that yet.

[Briel]

We're all pulling for you Ro-gan.

There are some people out there lucky enough to never have encountered a crazy person in their relationships (and hopefully they never will), but it makes it hard for them to understand. Two people meet then later change their minds, or cheat, or whatever, is something that can be dealt with. But every once in a while one of the party has issues that had nothing to do with the relationship that makes them impossible to deal with.

None of this individual post referring to my original question of course. Two separate issues.

[GoldenAge]

Hang in there ro-gan!!!

[PrankMonkey]

Luke... use the Force!

[PrankMonkey]

To choke her.:knockedou

[freakazoid_x]

Yeah a civil case brings no jail time or real punishment, just financial restitution.

Although I do think outing the young lady's identity was a neccessity. Because her sexual history is a factor here. I'm not saying it's the deciding factor, nor will I elaborate on my views because I don't want to start a flame war, but I do think that outing her is neccessary to get evidence neccessary to prove Bryant's allegid non-offender status.

[Briel]

Her identity is no one's business but the court's and the defendant's. The rest of us sitting at home don't need to know.

Even her history is only relevant to one issue. Not how many guys she was with, but which one abused her.

The law protects women because of the scorn and ridicule they get for standing up for their rights. Basically in this case, keeping thousands of Lakers fans from calling her house.

To keep the trial fair for both parties, the media should have been excluded from all court proceedings. Now both parties are being judged in the court of ignorant public opinion no matter what the truth, legal or otherwise is.

As I said I'm not on either side, but the media and the courts have really messed this one up for both sides. Justice for either party is going to be almost next to impossible at this point.

Freedom of the press was meant to keep the government honest, and protect the safety of the public. Now it's being used and abused to create circuses for ratings, and harming those who'm it was meant to protect.