Can a civil complaint be dismissed if the only charge quotes a
criminal charge under US codes and nothings else? And the Criminal
issue has already been resolved in favor of the defendant.

Title 18 Section 2701

Caz

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, caz@cazenave.ws (caz) wrote:
Can a civil complaint be dismissed if the only charge quotes acriminal charge under US codes and nothings else? And the Criminalissue has already been resolved in favor of the defendant.Title 18 Section 2701.

dismissed by by notice before answer unilaterally served by the
plaintiff? . . . by stipulation? . . . by the court on motion
(timely?) made by defendant if by "only" and by "nothings else" above
you mean to suggest that a "liberal" reading/construction of the
complaint is not rationally susceptible of its being one made under
color of, e.g., 18 Section 2707 (a provision of law related to the one
you cite)? . . . after trial on the merits because the court rules
that plaintiff has not proved whatever it is that the complaint
alleges?

and for the purposes of answering the "civilly suable:yes?/no?"
question, contrast "resolved in favor of the defendant" in the sense
of a declaratory judgment exonerating defendant (e.g., an affirmative
judicial finding/order of "actual innocence") with just a "not guilty"
verdict in a criminal prosecution (yet, for example, recall the civil
"wrongful death" lawsuit against O.J. Simpson, which resulted in a
judgment in favor of plaintiffs, despite his having been acquitted of
murder).

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:46:02 -0500, caz@cazenave.ws (caz) wrote:
Can a civil complaint be dismissed if the only charge quotes acriminal charge under US codes and nothings else? And the Criminalissue has already been resolved in favor of the defendant.Title 18 Section 2701

The fact that something is a crime doesn't mean that it's not also a
civil wrong for which damages might be awarded. In fact, the
existence of a criminal statute is often used to convince the court
that there should also be a civil action for damages, especially if
there is a conviction.

But the reverse is not true, because the burden of proof is different
in civil cases. So an acquittal does not resolve civil liability (and
the Goldman family could sue O.J. Simpson even after he was acquitted
of criminal charges).


*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).

>Subject: Criminal Charge in a Civil ComplaintFrom: caz@cazenave.ws (caz)Date: 2/24/2004 4:46 AM Pacific Standard TimeMessage-id: <gnhm309eun5jc6i125a38f6p1minh10a8j@4ax.com>Can a civil complaint be dismissed if the only charge quotes acriminal charge under US codes and nothings else? And the Criminalissue has already been resolved in favor of the defendant.Title 18 Section 2701Caz

It depends on what the civil complaint says. If you recall, OJ Simpson was
acquitted on criminal charges, but was still involved in a civil suit for
"wrongful death"--and lost.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. This is for discussion purposes only and is
not to be construed as legal advice. For legal advice, it is best to consult
an attorney.



"THE EXODUS CHRONICLES: Beliefs, Legends & Rumors from Antiquity Regarding the
Exodus of the Jews from Egypt" by Marianne Luban
You'll never think about the Biblical Book of Exodus in the same way again!
http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Exodus2.html

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 07:46:02 -0500, caz <caz@cazenave.ws> wrote: Can a civil complaint be dismissed if the only charge quotes a criminal charge under US codes and nothings else? And the Criminal issue has already been resolved in favor of the defendant.

Absolutely, yes. Remember OJ Simpson?

Isaac

caz@cazenave.ws (caz) wrote in news:gnhm309eun5jc6i125a38f6p1minh10a8j@
4ax.com:
Can a civil complaint be dismissed if the only charge quotes a criminal charge under US codes and nothings else? And the Criminal issue has already been resolved in favor of the defendant. Title 18 Section 2701 Caz
Read 18 USC 2707
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?
dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2707


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com> wrote in message
news:<gt7p30leh90lmmnl18jfh76jskn74indo9@4ax.com>... But the reverse is not true, because the burden of proof is different in civil cases. So an acquittal does not resolve civil liability (and the Goldman family could sue O.J. Simpson even after he was acquitted of criminal charges).

The standard of proof is different in civil cases vs. criminal cases.
To get a criminal conviction against a defendant, the court basically
has to be absolutely certain "beyond any reasonable doubt." To get a
civil judgement against a defendant, the court basically just has to
be pretty sure according to a "preponderance of the evidence."

The evidence against OJ suggested that he probably killed his ex-wife.
Certainly, someone murdered her, and there is no evidence pointing to
any other possible suspects and lots of evidence pointing to OJ.
However, the jury in the criminal case was not 100.00000% convinced so
they voted to acquit him--- not necessarily because they thought
someone else murdered Nicole Brown Simpson but simply because (in
their view) there was still a reasonable doubt. (Myself, personally,
I think he was guilty as hell, but I was not a member of the jury and
I did not hear all the testimony....) The evidence was strong enough
to support a civil case, even though it did not lead to a conviction
in the criminal case.