Wrongful Death Cases - The Burden of Proof Issue
Wrongful death cases are some of the most misunderstood in the field of law. People get outraged about them without really understanding what is happening. One of the reasons this occurs is because of the issue of burden of proof.
Let's look at the ultimate example of how burden of proof plays a major role in a case. Yes, the first OJ Simpson incident is the choice. OJ was charged with multiple murders, which are criminal charges. As we know, the gloves didn't fit and the jury acquitted him. Fast forward a couple years and what is in the news? OJ. He was being sued for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. The result? A verdict against him in excess of $30 million dollars.
So, how can we get such different results? The answer is the burden of proof. The criminal case required that the state prove that OJ committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less and the jury had to decide in favor of Simpson. When the gloves didn't fit, reasonable doubt existed. The wrongful death case, on the other hand, is a civil law matter. OJ did not face jail time, only a money judgment. As such, the burden of proof was the much lower "preponderance of the evidence". This effectively means that when the jury evaluated the evidence, a finding that the evidence was slightly more in favor of the plaintiff would result in a verdict against OJ.
Many people rail against the legal system because of what they see as inconsistent verdicts. Why was one result reached in one case while another result was reached in a similar case? There is a certain variation that will come with having different juries, but much of the difference is attributable to the fact there may be different burden of proofs being used in each case.
Let's look at the ultimate example of how burden of proof plays a major role in a case. Yes, the first OJ Simpson incident is the choice. OJ was charged with multiple murders, which are criminal charges. As we know, the gloves didn't fit and the jury acquitted him. Fast forward a couple years and what is in the news? OJ. He was being sued for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. The result? A verdict against him in excess of $30 million dollars.
So, how can we get such different results? The answer is the burden of proof. The criminal case required that the state prove that OJ committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less and the jury had to decide in favor of Simpson. When the gloves didn't fit, reasonable doubt existed. The wrongful death case, on the other hand, is a civil law matter. OJ did not face jail time, only a money judgment. As such, the burden of proof was the much lower "preponderance of the evidence". This effectively means that when the jury evaluated the evidence, a finding that the evidence was slightly more in favor of the plaintiff would result in a verdict against OJ.
Many people rail against the legal system because of what they see as inconsistent verdicts. Why was one result reached in one case while another result was reached in a similar case? There is a certain variation that will come with having different juries, but much of the difference is attributable to the fact there may be different burden of proofs being used in each case.
Source...