Wrongful death cases are some of the most misunderstood in the field of law. People get outraged about it without really understanding what is happening. One of the reasons, in this case because of the burden of proof.
Let's look at the ultimate example of how the burden of proof plays an important role in one case. Yes, this is the first incident, the OJ Simpson choice. OJ was collected with several murders, the prosecution. As we know, the gloves do not fit and the juryacquitted him. Fast forward a few years and what is in the news? OJ. He was sued for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. The result? A ruling against him in more than $ 30 million U.S. dollars.
So, how can we achieve such different results? The answer is the burden of proof. The criminal case required that the State prove that the crimes committed OJ beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less, and had the jury decide in favor of Simpson. If the gloves do not fit,reasonable doubt existed. The wrongful death case, on the other hand, is a civil matter. OJ not face prison time, money, only one sentence. As such, the burden of the much lower "preponderance of the evidence was." This effectively means that if the jury the evidence, the finding that the evidence was evaluated a little more in favor of the plaintiff in a verdict against OJ. Result was.
Many people complain because the justice of what they see as inconsistent judgments.Why a result was achieved in one case, while a different result was reached in a similar case? There is a certain variation, which will come with various juries, but much of the difference is due to the fact that there are different burdens of proof are used in every case.
