^ Which is where I think the thirteenth affirmative defence comes in (Res Judicata and Collateral estoppel).
The evidence that R and S are quoting has already been tried, and found not to be proven 'beyond reasonable' doubt' in criminal proceedings. I suppose they thought they would try and get through the civil proceedings on the same evidence, as the burden of proof is lower (preponderance of evidence ie 50% or more likely).
However, Res judicata seems to say that you cannot try the same evidence twice, if the parties in the case are the same or 'related' between cases.
I am guessing that as regards the parties in the two cases, option 'E' below applies, or the Estate would not have used this defence?
The
Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
These two doctrines establish the rule that once a case has reached a final judgment, relitigation of the claims and issues generally is barred.
Res Judicata (Claim Preclusion)
A.Rule: If judgment is rendered in favor of a plaintiff in a particular suit, the plaintiff is precluded from raising claims (in any future litigation) which were raised in (or could have been raised) in that lawsuit.
B.Elements: Before a court will apply the doctrine of res judicata to a claim, three elements must be satisfied:
1.
There must have been prior litigation in which identical claims were raised (or could have been raised). In general, claims are sufficiently identical if they are found to share a “common nucleus of operative fact.”
2.
The parties in the second litigation must be identical in some manner to the parties in the original litigation,
or be in privity with the parties in the first action.
Note: A party is considered to be in privity with a party in the original litigation if:
A.The nonparty succeeded to the interest of a party;
B.The nonparty, though it did not technically participate in the first suit, controlled one party’s litigation in that suit;
C.The nonparty shares a property interest with the party;
D.The party and the nonparty have an agency relationship (agent/principal); or
E.The party otherwise adequately represented the interest of the nonparty in the previous litigation.
3.There must have been a final judgment on the merits in the original litigation. Note: Not all final judgments are based on the merits of the case (i.e., cases dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, etc.).
C.Scope: Res judicata bars relitigation of claims that were previously litigated as well as claims that could have been litigated in the first lawsuit.
D.Counterclaims:Res judicata is generally not applied to potential counterclaims by defendants, so defendants are not necessarily barred from raising a counterclaim in future litigation. However, remember that all counterclaims must conform to FRCP Rule 13(a), and that some counterclaims are compulsory (must be raised in original litigation or they are waived).
http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/civilprocedure/section10.php
