What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

Re: NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

I thought the difference was "beyond a reasonable doubt" vs "probably caused the death". However, a good point is the big difference is Hernandez isn't around to aid his defense in a civil suit unlike OJ...
 
Re: NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

Kepler said:
Wait, are they a simple superset/subset relation? That is, if you are found criminally liable are you by definition civilly liable? I always thought they were entirely different charges, not the same charge tried at different standards (which seems like double jeopardy)?
Click to expand...

pretty sure double jeopardy is either applied separately between civil and criminal courts or only applied to criminal courts.
 
Re: NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

Kepler said:
Wait, are they a simple superset/subset relation? That is, if you are found criminally liable are you by definition civilly liable? I always thought they were entirely different charges, not the same charge tried at different standards (which seems like double jeopardy)?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think that you can be found guilty, but not civilly liable, and vice versa, as happened in Simpson. The parties are different. In one case the parties are the wrongdoer and the state. In the other, the parties are the wrongdoer and the injured party, or his heirs. But maybe things are different in some states.

But if you are found guilty and sitting in prison, that's going to come out in the civil case, so it's pretty unlikely you will escape civil liability. Also, if you testified in the criminal case, or were asked during a plea of guilty to tell what you did to provide a factual basis for your plea, that will probably be used against you in the civil case.

Whether his daughter ever inherits anything is going to be another matter. I imagine it will have to do with what claims exist against the estate.
 
Shirtless Guy said:
I assume bc there is no criminal conviction and the defendant isn't alive to defend himself, things are much more difficult or even impossible to get anywhere?
Click to expand...

Civil liability is much easier to get to than criminal. Preponderance of the evidence vs beyond all reasonable doubt. There's also fewer constitutional safeguards for civil trials (you can be compelled to testify, for instance)

Criminal trials go first because you can't force someone to testify against themselves in criminal cases. You can in civil, and you can introduce statements made under oath (such as at trial), which leads to a catch-22 if the civil trial goes first.

Plaintiffs don't usually mind waiting, either, because a criminal conviction essentially guarantees winning a civil case without a trial due to that difference in burden.
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
Wait, are they a simple superset/subset relation? That is, if you are found criminally liable are you by definition civilly liable? I always thought they were entirely different charges, not the same charge tried at different standards (which seems like double jeopardy)?
Click to expand...

A criminal conviction can be used to prove civil liability if the elements are the same.

An acquittal at the criminal stage means nothing, because it's a higher standard of guilt.

Put another way, meeting a beyond all reasonable doubt standard necessarily includes meeting a preponderance of the evidence standard. But not satisfying beyond all reasonable doubt doesn't mean you couldn't still satisfy a preponderance of the evidence standard.
 
Re: NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

Oh... the melts in Chicago will be epic.

:D
 
Re: NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

That was a defensible pick.

The Bears, on the other hand....
 
Re: NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

I was flipping and happened to catch that pick.

Did the Bears give up all those picks to move up one spot?

Did they think SF might take him?
 
Re: NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

The NFL thread on the Hawks hfboards page is gold.

Those folks are already down and now this?


LOLOLOLOLOLOL

:D
 
Re: NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

They're hoping that a trade is in order with the Browns sending that guy there.

Hey... could turn out that he wins multiple Super Bowls.


For now though, Chicago is burning to the ground and it warms the heart. :D
 
Re: NFL 2016-17 II: Playoffs, Super Bowl, and Offseason

dxmnkd316 said:
What happened?
Click to expand...

The Bears went full Cleveland Browns. You NEVER go full Cleveland Browns.

They traded their #3 overall pick, plus three more draft picks (a 3rd and 4th round this year, plus a 3rd rounder next year) to move up a whopping ONE spot, to draft a QB that is probably going to be a bust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top