SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (3085)10/17/2006 6:33:17 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
There is no conviction, that doesn't mean there is no grounds to sue.

You can sue someone who is acquitted of a crime. An acquittal only means that there is no proof beyond all reasonable doubt, it isn't considered a positive determination that they did not commit the crime. There might be a preponderance of evidence without there being "proof beyond all reasonable doubt".

And of course there are many things you can sue for that aren't actual criminally prohibited.



To: one_less who wrote (3085)10/18/2006 10:08:25 AM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 10087
 
Basically, same idea as with OJ....although the criminal case is kaput....the claimants could basically prove up the same case as the government as to Lay's responsibility in a civil court ...and the burden of proof is lower in a civil matter....


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News