Latest on MJJC

Civil Trial and Criminal Trial??

4u_n_4me

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
658
Points
0
Location
Native America
Here is an excerpt I don't quite understand of the two regarding Michael's 1993 case:

"Because of double jeopardy, anyone accused of a crime will never have to defend themselves for the same allegation twice unless one trial takes place in civil court and the other in criminal court. This was the situation with Michael Jackson in 1993."

A big thankx in advance! I was hoping someone could put in simpler words the difference between civil court and criminal court please? And why didn't Michael go thru with a civil trial at all again?

Actually could someone please simplify this whole article here please?? http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/civilsuit.html
 
The law back then permitted a civil trial before a criminal trial in 1993, that's not possible anymore (some "geniuses" permitted that the law could allow that in 1993 :doh:)

-Criminal cases will have jail time as a potential punishment, whereas civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not do something. (a criminal case may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines).

-The standard of PROOF is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.

When Evan was filing suit he included the words: "negligence course of distress" knowing the insurance would pay for that which would pave way for the Chandlers to avoid the criminal trial, because criminal cases are harder to prove.

MJ and his team had to pay or take chances with a civil trial that could last 7 or maybe 10 years and at the end there was no guaranty he could win because in civil cases you don't need harder proof. I hope this helps you :)
 
Last edited:
^Beyond reasonable doubt means that, basically, the prosecution's case has no visible holes in it, and is overall more credible than the defence's stance. For example, someone who is being accused of murdering someone else's gun is at the scene of the crime, and everything seems to point to them being guilty of the crime (say they disliked each other or something, and everyone knew it)--except, this person has a credible alibi--it turns out they were at their job during the scene of the crime and others in his workplace testify this is true. Therefore, reasonable doubt would say this testimony could be accurate, and thus this person is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Basically, reasonable doubt is when things don't quite add up, usually referring to the prosecution's case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top