Take for instance, the case of OJ Simpson. Leaving aside all actual discussion of guilt in the case, there were a couple ways he could have been found 'guilty' of the murder of his wife and her whatever he was. The basic muder trial failed, so the family sued and he was found guilty in a civil court of being responsible for her murder, but not guilty of actual murder (go figure THAT one out some day).

What's to figure out? Under U. S. law, the burden of proof in a criminal case, is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" - or otherwise not guilty, under the presumption of innocence. In a civil case, the burden of proof is only "a preponderance of the evidence" in English, which side's case in more likely correct than not?

Since, based on the highly dubious information available through the media, I think it is more likely than not that Simpson did the killing, but I am not convinced of it beyond a reasonable doubt, I feel, personally, that both juries made the right decision in that case.

The other angle (and the one that it sounds like is being built on in the case that started the problems in this thread) is that one may not be found guilty of the felony charge on a STATE level, but in the process one may have violated FEDERAL law. Your innocence of the act from the state case has no bearing on the federal one. This is how they eventually convicted the LAPD officers in the Rodney King case - innocent verdict in the state trial, riots started, federal trial found them guilty.

This is a flaw in U. S. law, as I see it. We have fairly strong strictures, at the Constitutional level, against double jeopardy. But because of dual sovereignity, a person can be forced to defend himself in state court and then in Federal, and double jeopardy doesn't apply for reasons that have never been clear to me.

Peter.