|
|
Post by rayozz on Mar 2, 2012 23:48:45 GMT -6
I am really confused about these.
I can understand them happening in an industrial accident where someone is killed due to unsafe conditions. The company gets some fine, and the family take it a bit further.
O.J.Simpson, although found not guilty of murder, has a wrongful death suit against him and faced millions in penalty.
Scott Peterson after being found guilty of murder, was also given a wrongful death conviction. What was the point? He is on death row, how can he pay it?
There is a man in North Carolina charged with murder, whose verdict should be released next week, after a hung jury trial last year. He has already been found guilty in a wrongful death suit and had $15 million awarded against him. Where is the presumption of innocence before trial? He has been found guilty in a civil trial, what hope does he have in a criminal trial?
So confusing. To me, that is!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2012 0:45:39 GMT -6
The wife of Robert Farquarson got a similar settlement he is doing 35-life.
Another question is what if someone is convicted and then go on and win the civil settlement
|
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Mar 3, 2012 3:17:37 GMT -6
The wife of Robert Farquarson got a similar settlement he is doing 35-life. Another question is what if someone is convicted and then go on and win the civil settlement When did Robert Farquarson have a wrongful death given against him? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2012 3:29:10 GMT -6
The wife of Robert Farquarson got a similar settlement he is doing 35-life. Another question is what if someone is convicted and then go on and win the civil settlement When did Robert Farquarson have a wrongful death given against him? It wasn't wrongful death, his wife sued him and won 250k in a civil settlement maybe for nervous shock. But it was suspended due to his trial |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2012 20:48:15 GMT -6
Why a wrongful death suit? Mainly for answers that you can't get in a criminal trial. Criminal trials have so many rules that protect the POS. In civil court the rules are a lot less strict. One thing is that the POS has to testify, no arguing, no whimpering, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. The questions are a lot more open in civil case than they are in a criminal case, IOW, you can find out crap that really matters, such as involvement in other crimes or evidence of them, which then can be used in a criminal case. You also get access to those oh so innocent family members(I'm not speaking of all family members of murderers but there are many). You get to put them on the hot seat and see what comes out.
It is really very revealing and you will get lots of answers. As far as the money. That's really funny, usually you see nothing or in our circumstance, we haven't even seen $1,000 in 14 years and we won't see another penny, ever. If you are doing it for the money, FORGET IT.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Mar 5, 2012 2:19:31 GMT -6
Why a wrongful death suit? Mainly for answers that you can't get in a criminal trial. Criminal trials have so many rules that protect the POS. In civil court the rules are a lot less strict. One thing is that the POS has to testify, no arguing, no whimpering, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. The questions are a lot more open in civil case than they are in a criminal case, IOW, you can find out crap that really matters, such as involvement in other crimes or evidence of them, which then can be used in a criminal case. You also get access to those oh so innocent family members(I'm not speaking of all family members of murderers but there are many). You get to put them on the hot seat and see what comes out. It is really very revealing and you will get lots of answers. As far as the money. That's really funny, usually you see nothing or in our circumstance, we haven't even seen $1,000 in 14 years and we won't see another penny, ever. If you are doing it for the money, FORGET IT. Thanks. I understand that. However, this man has not even been found guilty of murder. Surely this compromises his murder trial. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2012 7:02:49 GMT -6
Why a wrongful death suit? Mainly for answers that you can't get in a criminal trial. Criminal trials have so many rules that protect the POS. In civil court the rules are a lot less strict. One thing is that the POS has to testify, no arguing, no whimpering, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. The questions are a lot more open in civil case than they are in a criminal case, IOW, you can find out crap that really matters, such as involvement in other crimes or evidence of them, which then can be used in a criminal case. You also get access to those oh so innocent family members(I'm not speaking of all family members of murderers but there are many). You get to put them on the hot seat and see what comes out. It is really very revealing and you will get lots of answers. As far as the money. That's really funny, usually you see nothing or in our circumstance, we haven't even seen $1,000 in 14 years and we won't see another penny, ever. If you are doing it for the money, FORGET IT. Thanks. I understand that. However, this man has not even been found guilty of murder. Surely this compromises his murder trial. We brought the wrongful death suit right after his arrest. We were not allowed to do any depositions until after the criminal trial but in the case you brought up, it was a hung jury for the first trial and the courts must have decided to let the civil case take its course. Innocent until proven guilty is only for criminal court. Civil court is only 51% of the evidence, so the outcome can be entirely different. |
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Mar 5, 2012 7:54:43 GMT -6
I am aware of your situation, and I know that the monies awarded for wrongful death are seldom, if ever paid out.
Yes, it is a retrial but the wrongful death verdict was before his first trial last year. That is surely prejudical. I also have the feeling that it is the same judge.
I better do some checking, could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Mar 5, 2012 8:10:52 GMT -6
Just checked: "RALEIGH -- The judge in the civil case against Jason Young ruled Friday that he "willfully and unlawfully" killed his wife Michelle."
This was in 2009, well before his first trial in 2011, and believe it is the same judge who handled the first murder trial last year and the current one.
Just don't think it is fair, and must be open to many appeals if found guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Apr 11, 2012 20:51:17 GMT -6
I am really confused about these. I can understand them happening in an industrial accident where someone is killed due to unsafe conditions. The company gets some fine, and the family take it a bit further. O.J.Simpson, although found not guilty of murder, has a wrongful death suit against him and faced millions in penalty. Scott Peterson after being found guilty of murder, was also given a wrongful death conviction. What was the point? He is on death row, how can he pay it? There is a man in North Carolina charged with murder, whose verdict should be released next week, after a hung jury trial last year. He has already been found guilty in a wrongful death suit and had $15 million awarded against him. Where is the presumption of innocence before trial? He has been found guilty in a civil trial, what hope does he have in a criminal trial? So confusing. To me, that is! I can hopefully explain. In the United States we have criminal law and civil tort actions. Our civil tort actions are the only component in the judicial law in the US that parallels old English Common law and the concept of equity (Making one whole). They are like comparing an Apple to an Orange. Because our criminal law involves loosing your freedom or possibly your life for certain crimes, they place a heavy burden on the prosecution to make a prime-fascia case. There are rules of evidence that apply, and various protections that the defendant has. Such as remaining silent through entire process to avoid self incrimination. These are barriers that the prosecutor has to go through in order to present evidence, such as having probable cause to get a warrant to search your place and gather evidence. Then there are strict guidelines on how the evidence has to be handled and accounted for. If any protocol along the evidence chain is broken, then the defendent has the right to have all evidence that lead up to that point excluded, with the concept that it is referred to Fruit from the poisonous tree. THIS IS CRIMINAL LAWFOR CIVIL LAWThere are a lot misconceptions on how civil torts work in this country. Civil law is whole completely different animal. In a civil tort matter, you are not defending yourself from the state. Your life and freedom are not on the line. Instead, you are defending yourself from another private individual who is making a complaint against you and is called the plaintiff. This court is not assigning guilt, they are simply finding either in favor of you defendant or the plaintiff. In this matter, the plaintiff has a grievance that is brought before a civil judge to remedy the situation. The big difference between the two courts are that in a civil the plaintiff does not have to prove you are culpable for the action "Beyond a reasonable doubt," All the plaintiff has to do is prove that you were some how involved in the action. Then its up to a judge or a jury to determine how much of your involvement resulted in what the plaintiff is complaining about. In some of cases they can prove that the plaintiff may partial responsible and award the defendant a reduced sum. The big picture is that because you are not fighting for your freedom or life, the rules of evidence is much mare relaxed than in criminal cases. In fact evidence that is not allowed in a criminal cases, may be presented in the civil case by the plaintiff. This is commonly why it is possible to win a civil case against someone in wrongful death even though they might be acquitted criminally. All the plaintiff has to do is prove that you had some involvement and that your actions or lack there of, led to the death and therefore you can be liable. Then the court finds in favor of the plaintiff. Because a criminal defendant loses a civil tort this by no means has any connection to the criminal case. So in the case you mention, all the rules of trial procedure still remain in place. In criminal law one of the protections that you have is the prosecution typically is not allowed to bring up any prior bad acts or any matters that can prejudice a jury, like losing a civil tort on the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Apr 11, 2012 20:59:21 GMT -6
The wife of Robert Farquarson got a similar settlement he is doing 35-life. Another question is what if someone is convicted and then go on and win the civil settlement If the person commits a murder and has a lot assets you can bleed them dry by taking everything. This would be for the case that person is able to get out after a certain period of time. Of course it's only worth if the person or family has money to cease. |
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Apr 12, 2012 1:03:29 GMT -6
I am really confused about these. I can understand them happening in an industrial accident where someone is killed due to unsafe conditions. The company gets some fine, and the family take it a bit further. O.J.Simpson, although found not guilty of murder, has a wrongful death suit against him and faced millions in penalty. Scott Peterson after being found guilty of murder, was also given a wrongful death conviction. What was the point? He is on death row, how can he pay it? There is a man in North Carolina charged with murder, whose verdict should be released next week, after a hung jury trial last year. He has already been found guilty in a wrongful death suit and had $15 million awarded against him. Where is the presumption of innocence before trial? He has been found guilty in a civil trial, what hope does he have in a criminal trial? So confusing. To me, that is! I can hopefully explain. In the United States we have criminal law and civil tort actions. Our civil tort actions are the only component in the judicial law in the US that parallels old English Common law and the concept of equity (Making one whole). They are like comparing an Apple to an Orange. Because our criminal law involves loosing your freedom or possibly your life for certain crimes, they place a heavy burden on the prosecution to make a prime-fascia case. There are rules of evidence that apply, and various protections that the defendant has. Such as remaining silent through entire process to avoid self incrimination. These are barriers that the prosecutor has to go through in order to present evidence, such as having probable cause to get a warrant to search your place and gather evidence. Then there are strict guidelines on how the evidence has to be handled and accounted for. If any protocol along the evidence chain is broken, then the defendent has the right to have all evidence that lead up to that point excluded, with the concept that it is referred to Fruit from the poisonous tree. THIS IS CRIMINAL LAWFOR CIVIL LAWThere are a lot misconceptions on how civil torts work in this country. Civil law is whole completely different animal. In a civil tort matter, you are not defending yourself from the state. Your life and freedom are not on the line. Instead, you are defending yourself from another private individual who is making a complaint against you and is called the plaintiff. This court is not assigning guilt, they are simply finding either in favor of you defendant or the plaintiff. In this matter, the plaintiff has a grievance that is brought before a civil judge to remedy the situation. The big difference between the two courts are that in a civil the plaintiff does not have to prove you are culpable for the action "Beyond a reasonable doubt," All the plaintiff has to do is prove that you were some how involved in the action. Then its up to a judge or a jury to determine how much of your involvement resulted in what the plaintiff is complaining about. In some of cases they can prove that the plaintiff may partial responsible and award the defendant a reduced sum. The big picture is that because you are not fighting for your freedom or life, the rules of evidence is much mare relaxed than in criminal cases. In fact evidence that is not allowed in a criminal cases, may be presented in the civil case by the plaintiff. This is commonly why it is possible to win a civil case against someone in wrongful death even though they might be acquitted criminally. All the plaintiff has to do is prove that you had some involvement and that your actions or lack there of, led to the death and therefore you can be liable. Then the court finds in favor of the plaintiff. Because a criminal defendant loses a civil tort this by no means has any connection to the criminal case. So in the case you mention, all the rules of trial procedure still remain in place. In criminal law one of the protections that you have is the prosecution typically is not allowed to bring up any prior bad acts or any matters that can prejudice a jury, like losing a civil tort on the matter. Thank you for your reply. My point is, how can he have a non prejudicial jury? It was a well documented case. A mistrial, and a wrongful death case declared against him. I followed most of the retrial and thought I couldn't find him guilty. Don't think he had a chance in the retrial. |
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Apr 12, 2012 1:47:02 GMT -6
Thank you for your reply. My point is, how can he have a non prejudicial jury? It was a well documented case. A mistrial, and a wrongful death case declared against him. I followed most of the retrial and thought I couldn't find him guilty. Don't think he had a chance in the retrial. In the real world there is no way to have achive this 100% especially in a high profile case like Casy Anthony or Scott Peterson. Its next to impossible to find someone without prior knowledge of those cases. So how do you try mitigate it? Well first there is Jury Voire Doir I am sure I am spelling it wrongThis is where both trial attorneys with the presiding judge interview hundreds of ordinary citizens that are tapped for jury duty to see who will be the most objective at trial. The first question they will ask is "do you have knowledge of this case or defendant?" I have sat on this before and was not selected because I knew of a case before hand. Then they will ask you various questions on your objectivity. If you or a family member or a victim of a similar crime, if so, than that gets you disqualified. So that is one way. Another thing they may do is change of Venue. Usually its the defense that strategically requests this. This is where the trial gets moved to a jurisdiction that was relativity far from the location of the crime. Although this is a double edge sword sometimes. It usually involves the case being in a rual area, where demographically people tend to be more conservative in there value system and have very little sympathy; for the poor ghetto kid who grew up with crack addict mother, and father beat his ass and he decided to murder someone with a bat so he could get high.. This why alot of Texas Defense attorneys will tend to strategically keep the trial in an urban area if they can where the jury's tend to be more compassionate towards the criminal's mitigating circumstances. Today with social media and internet its almost impossible from keeping the cat out of the bag anyway, in most cases COV gets denied, on the basis that will not matter. Next what they may do is sequester the Jury. This is where the judge can "Lockdown" the Jury for the duration of the trial keeping them in hotel rooms w/o access to tv or news papers. This is only done extreme circumstances. Once all of those barriers have been considered then it is up to the judge to make sure the jury is instructed properly on what the legal parameters of the case are and only consider evidence introduced at the trial. If the judge fails to properly instruct jury and it can be proven that other factors were considered, then this where appeals come in and why the condemned will be on DR for 20+years because his attorney will be able appeal and appeal until either he gets a new trial or finally walks the "last mile". Is it perfect? No of course not unless the trial can be on Mars, d But if the guy actually the crime and there was significant evidence to prove it both civil and crimminal cases then I believe the criminal system met its intent and the guy was given a fair trial as best as they could. Short of that change of venue on Mars it will be next to impossible to say in any case a criminal will be not have some bit of pre-judgement. In the US you don't have a right to a perfectly fair trial, you are only given the right a reasonable fair trial. It as good as it can get. |
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Apr 12, 2012 2:18:16 GMT -6
[Today with social media and internet its almost impossible from keeping the cat out of the bag anyway, in most cases COV gets denied, on the basis that will not matter.
That is my point, and I don't see a way around it.
How can George Zimmerman get a fair trial? The case is world wide. It is on the front page of our Australian newsapers.
Trayvon Martin. There is an implied racial motive. How do you find a jury?
|
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Apr 12, 2012 2:56:53 GMT -6
As I mentioned before, that is where the Judge will need to scrutinize the Jury pool to make sure that Jury members will be willing to be objective as possible. I gave a few examples of questions that they ask during jury selection. Believe or not there are firms that lawyers can hire to help in selection such as asking questions that will force the jury candidate to inadvertently show prejudice. I guarantee a good trial attorney will do that. Also each attorney is allowed X many challenges to dismiss Jury members for cause, so you can bet the defense will automatically bounce any young black people from the Jury. From what understand where this will be tried that wont hard. The crime was done in predominantly white retirement area. Most of the jury probably will be old white guys.
On an interesting note on that regard the way its supposed to work is that both sides are supposed to have a reasonable fair jury that's not supposed to favor one side over the other.
It will be up to the judge to prevent irrelevant facts from being entered as evidence.
The OJ simpson is an example of an unfair trial in the other direction, because Judge Ito allowed for the race card to used in his court the case was tainted. The Jury in that case had a bunch of people right on outset that went in with the notion that they were not going convict him because of his all of fame status and being black. One of the black jurors said after the fact that she was never was going to convict him regardless of the evidence.
Fair trial is just that fair, for both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Apr 12, 2012 3:16:52 GMT -6
Also that guy will have hard time proving self defense anyway. In the US you are only allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself as a last resort and there is no escape. Its what is referred to as the "Back against the wall criteria. In other words there is no where you can go to escape. An example would be if you have burglar in your house in the middle of the night and the assailant is already near your bedroom. If its determined that would not be able to leave in time, then you can shoot in self defense. In this case however, he put himself in the danger area when he could have left if thought he was in danger.
The main thing he will be defending himself is the bias crime statute which means that he can get extra time for the crime. Regardless, he is going to be convicted of some sort of felony. The lowest charge will be a aggravated manslaughter charge. At most they will try to get him for Murder 2. I am guessing his attorney will attempt to get a deal where he pleads guilty to the lesser charge, and try to get as small sentence as possible. Because of the bias on both sides this will make the most sense. If he pleads guilty, that will be "all she wrote." He will waive his right to appeal. Now if DA is politically motivated then this probably will go to trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jul 7, 2012 9:41:46 GMT -6
How can George Zimmerman get a fair trial? The case is world wide. It is on the front page of our Australian newsapers. Not only is the case reported world wide it is usually reported with a strong bias against Zimmerman. Jonathan Capehart, a member of the Washington Post editorial page is carrying out a personal crusade against Zimmerman which includes using false and misleading information. |
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Jul 7, 2012 9:44:47 GMT -6
Also that guy will have hard time proving self defense anyway. In the US you are only allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself as a last resort and there is no escape. Its what is referred to as the " Back against the wall criteria. In other words there is no where you can go to escape. An example would be if you have burglar in your house in the middle of the night and the assailant is already near your bedroom. If its determined that would not be able to leave in time, then you can shoot in self defense. That is no longer true in many, if not most, states which have passed "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" laws. Under the Castle Doctine, you do not have to retreat if your home is invaded. Under that Stand Your Ground laws you may defend yourself if you are in a place that you have a legal right to be in. |
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Jul 11, 2012 14:53:23 GMT -6
Rayozz, criminal defendants are not entitled to a presumption of innocence in the media, or in the minds of individual citizens. The only place in which they are afforded that presumption is within the four walls of the courtroom, by the jury, during the course of their criminal trial. Your belief that they are always entitled to that presumption by everyone is a common misconception.
In the Young case, the civil case was probably stayed pending the outcome of the criminal trial, but moved forward after the first trial ended in a mistrial. In the criminal trial, the judge, prosecutors and defense attorneys would've probably questioned prospective jurors about their knowledge of that verdict and whether they could put aside any opinion they had formed on the basis of that prior verdict.
I cannot remember the case name, or who the parties were, but I seem to recall that a defendant in a civil case was not prosecuted for murder until after he lost a civil wrongful death case. In fact, it was the civil case that provided a lot of the evidence that was eventually used against him in the criminal prosecution.
kma367
|
|
