Save a life, get arrested.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Actually, that's not true. There's a different system of evidence and different standard of proof in civil cases. The outcome of the criminal case has nothing to do with it.

Are you sure about that? You were quite sure that all banks were forced to belong to the Federal Reserve, and that Spain never had a problem with terrorists until they joined the US coalition. And in both cases you were shown to be wrong.

 

[Checkmite]

Actually, that's not true. There's a different system of evidence and different standard of proof in civil cases. The outcome of the criminal case has nothing to do with it.

I'd like to see a judge find the police at fault of "wrongful arrest" in the event of a guilty verdict. As a guilty verdict means that a jury has decided that he did, in fact, break a law; you can't logically be "wrongfully arrested" if you were actually committing the offense for which you were arrested.

On the other hand, I doubt a jury will find this person guilty.

 

[crimresearch]

The standard of proof in a civil case (the preponderance of the evidence), would be very heavily influenced by the conviction of the person on the very charges he would be claiming he was wrongly arrested for.

Particularly in suing someone who has qualified immunity, the amount of evidence needed to outweigh the side of the police would be substantial.

And it would have to be evidence admissible in a court of law... not speculation, conjecture, supposition, arm chair quarterbacking, or wild eyed conspiracy/anti-government flights of fantasy with made up definitions of legal terms.

 

[shanek]

I'd like to see a judge find the police at fault of "wrongful arrest" in the event of a guilty verdict.

That's a question for the jury. And the outcome of the criminal trial isn't supposed to come into evidence.

 

[crimresearch]

And the outcome of the criminal trial isn't supposed to come into evidence.

Because, as we all know, matters of public record are excluded from being used by the respondent in their defense....

 

[shanek]

Because, as we all know, matters of public record are excluded from being used by the respondent in their defense....

There have been countless cases where someone sued of something in civil court, such as wrongful death, was unable to use their acquittal in criminal court in their defense.

They can be admitted as evidence, but it has to pass the question of whether or not its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effects. Often, that isn't the case.

 

[Manny]

There have been countless cases where someone sued of something in civil court, such as wrongful death, was unable to use their acquittal in criminal court in their defense.

They can be admitted as evidence, but it has to pass the question of whether or not its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effects. Often, that isn't the case.

Depends on the jurisdiction and on the facts of the case. In some states, a conviction (or more specifically, a conviction which is not overturned on appeal) is an absolute affirmative defence against malicious prosecution but not against false arrest. In other jurisdictions, such an affirmed conviction is an absolute affirmative defence against both torts but not against other torts which may arise from the arrest such as brutality charges.

Controlling in Texas appears to be Wells v. Bonner, which bars recovery under a claim of false arrest if the defendant is convicted of the charges which occasioned the arrest.

However, that's not relevant in this instance, as the charges have been dropped.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There have been countless cases where someone sued of something in civil court, such as wrongful death, was unable to use their acquittal in criminal court in their defense.

They can be admitted as evidence, but it has to pass the question of whether or not its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effects. Often, that isn't the case.

You seem to be awfully sure of that. Care to address Spain's terrorsist problem? Or is that to be ignored, because you don't want to be embaressed?