Blake Must Pay.

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

BLAKE MUST PAY

Quote:

Nov 18, 2005 5:30 pm US/Eastern
(1010 WINS) (BURBANK, Calif.) Eight months after Robert Blake was acquitted at a criminal trial of murdering his wife, a civil jury decided Friday the tough-guy actor was behind the slaying, and ordered him to pay Bonnie Lee Bakley's children $30 million in damages.

The jury deliberated eight days before ruling in a 10-2 vote that the former ``Baretta'' star ``intentionally caused the death'' of Bakley, who was gunned down in 2001 in the actor's car outside a restaurant where the couple had just dined.

Blake, dressed in a black suit and tie, looked down as the verdict was read.

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_322162342.html

Could one of the legal eagles on a2k explain this. I cannot see the logic or how the law justifies this. Guilty or innocent Blake was found not guilty in the murder trial. How can this jury find him guilty? In fact how can he have been retried for the same crime. It to this uninitiated one it would appear to be a case of double jeopardy.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,152 • Replies: 24

No top replies

The burden of proof is much less in a civil trial. There is no "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" involved. Also, Blake had to testify in his own defense and he was, shall we say, less than credible. It's not double jeopardy as Blake will not have to serve prison time and the crime he is being accused of is different. He was found not responsible for her murder but he is found responsible for the finacial losses incurred by her and her family. Blake got off easy.

0 Replies

Quote:

BURBANK, Calif. (AP) -- Robert Blake lashed out at his critics - including the plaintiffs' attorney - during the wrongful death trial of his wife, but jurors who found him liable in the slaying said the tough-guy actor was his own "worst enemy" on the witness stand.

In a 10-2 decision, the jury ruled Friday that Blake "intentionally caused the death" of Bonny Lee Bakley, who was gunned down May 4, 2001 outside a restaurant where the couple had just dined. Blake was ordered to pay her four children $30 million in damages.

Jurors said they were swayed by the former "Baretta" star's combative attitude during his eight days of testimony, when he often railed at plaintiffs' attorney Eric Dubin, calling him "chief," "junior" or "sonny." At one point, Dubin said he felt threatened by Blake's responses.

"We believe that Mr. Blake was probably his worst enemy on the stand," jury foreman Bob Horn said.

Jurors didn't indicate what specific evidence caused them to find Blake responsible.

"In the end, the evidence that was presented really convinced the jury to the standard that we were set to," Horn said.

Blake was aquitted in March in his criminal trial, when 12 jurors had to decide guilt unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil wrongful-death case required only that nine of 12 jurors believe by a "preponderance" of the evidence that Blake was responsible for the crime.

When asked whether Blake pulled the trigger, juror Tony Aldana said, "To this point, who knows. We're not sure."

To me and of course I do not know the fine points of law. However, the only conclusion I can reach reading this is they convicted him of a murder for which he had already been aquitted. .

0 Replies

Au, exactly the same thing happened in the O.J. Simpson case. Simpson was acquitted on criminal charges, but found culpable in the ensuing civil suit. Under US law, it is not considered double jeopardy. The civil suit did not accuse him of murder, as he had already been cleared of that charge. A civil suit, claiming damages and seeking redress, is a different kettle of fish from a criminal case. First, the burden of proof is not the same. In a criminal case, the prosecuter has to prove his position 'beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case, it is only necessary that "the preponderance of evidence" be on the side of the plaintiff. Additionally, the jury verdict need not be unanimous for the plaintiff to win.

Is it fair? I doubt it. Is it the law? Definitely.

0 Replies

If you ask me the law is all f**ked up.

0 Replies

When an individual causes the death of another, the individual has committed an act that subjects himself to both criminal and civil liability.

In a criminal prosecution, the state prosecutes the alleged offender on behalf of the citizens of the state. The state prosecutor represents the people and their interests in defining criminal offenses and punishing offenders.

The double jeopardy clause prevents the STATE--with all of its power--from placing the offender in jeopardy of PUNISHMENT more than once for the SAME OFFENSE. Accordingly, the state prosecuted Blake for the public offense of murder and Blake was found not guilty. That means the STATE cannot try him a second time for the murder of his wife. The double jeopardy clause is a limitation on the GOVERNMENT (not on private parties).

In a civil prosecution, the dead person's family (not the state) may sue a defendant for wrongful death and seek MONETARY damages. If the family's lawsuit had been unsuccessful, the doctrine of res judicata would prevent the family from suing the defendant again for any claims that were actually decided in the previous lawsuit and for any claims that could have been brought against the defendant in the previous lawsuit but were not.

0 Replies

Debra_Law.
I understand. However, IMO, which is meaningless, I think the law is wrong.

0 Replies

I think most laypersons would agree with you, au1929. But the legalistic mind doesn't work on the same principles as yours and mine.

0 Replies

It isn't just murderers who are liable in civil proceedings for wrongful death. Anytime a person is killed due to the negligence or misconduct of another individual, company, or entity, a wrongful death suit can be brought.

Why should murderers be given a free walk and be exempted from civil liability for wrongful death simply because the state was unable to prove all the elements of the criminal offense of murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

How can the law be wrong when it makes murderers (regardless of whether they're convicted or not) subject to civil wrongful death actions the same as a negligent doctor or a negligent ladder manufacturer et al.?

General information on wrongful death actions:
http://injury.findlaw.com/personal-injury/personal-injury-a-z/wrongful-death.html

0 Replies

Debra Law

Quote:

Why should murderers be given a free walk and be exempted from civil liability for wrongful death simply because the state was unable to prove all the elements of the criminal offense of murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

The law says innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, in the eyes of the law Blake is not guilty. And not a murderer.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Why should murderers be given a free walk and be exempted from civil liability for wrongful death simply because the state was unable to prove all the elements of the criminal offense of murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think this statement is the key insight to what has happened to our legal system. An acquital in a criminal trial now is the equivalent of the Scottish verdict "not proven" and the accused is open to any other vindictive actions the community as a whole may wish to take short of a second criminal trial. I agree with Au, this situation is outrageous and I would add ultimately destructive. Acquittal in a criminal trial no longer has any meaning and accusation has become the equivalent of conviction.

0 Replies

I see from reading the accounts that the jury went 10-2. I think - I'm not familiiar with the law in California - that a murder jury must convict unanimously? If that's the case (which it is in my jurisdiction where a majority verdict for any other offence is allowed after four hours deliberation and a direction by the Judge on application of the jury that a majority verdict may be found) then it could be the jury in the murder trial couldn't come to a unanimous decision but the jury in the civil trial could reach a majority decision.

0 Replies

In a criminal prosecution, the STATE must prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The government's BURDEN of PROOF that must be met before the government may inflict PUNISHMENT is the highest burden imposed by law. The government did not meet its ONEROUS burden in the criminal prosecution, therefore, the government may not PUNISH Blake.

A finding of "not guilty" in a criminal prosecution does not exonerate a defendant from civil liability in a civil wrongful death action wherein the civil plaintiff's burden of proof with respect to the elements of the wrongful death claim is simply by the preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). In the civil action, the victim's family met the burden of proof. Accordingly, a jury found that Blake is responsible for the wrongful death of his wife and is liable for civil damages.

Criminal law and civil law are two distinct areas of the law and serve different purposes. The law doesn't require an individual to be found guilty in a criminal proceeding as a prerequisite to bringing a civil action against him. A finding of "not guilty" in a criminal proceeding does not exempt a defendant from potential liability in a civil proceeding.

Your views simply reflect a lack of understanding with respect to the two separate and distinct areas of criminal law and civil law and the purposes they serve.

0 Replies

The pupose of civil law is in all to many instances to give the ambulance chasers a living. Tort reform where are you??

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Why should murderers be given a free walk and be exempted from civil liability for wrongful death simply because the state was unable to prove all the elements of the criminal offense of murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

How can the law be wrong when it makes murderers (regardless of whether they're convicted or not) subject to civil wrongful death actions the same as a negligent doctor or a negligent ladder manufacturer et al.?

The point, Debra, is that if a person has been found to be "not guilty" by a jury of his peers then that means he has been found to not be a murderer and it should be actionable under libel and slander laws to describe and/or call him by that appelation. The not guilty verdict should be seen as prima facie evidence of a person's exemption from liability for an act of which he has been found innocent. An exception might be made in cases of so-called self-defence, where a defendant was found to be not criminally responsible even though he was the proximate cause of death. I can see the merit of a civil action in such a case. But I find no merit in prosecuting a person for monetary damages when a jury of his peers has already exonerated him/her of criminal charges, thus clearly implying that he/she had nothing to do with the demise of the victim.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Your views simply reflect a lack of understanding with respect to the two separate and distinct areas of criminal law and civil law and the purposes they serve.

I don't think it's a lack of 'understanding.' It is simply disagreement with the letter of the law. I do not -- and, indeed, cannot -- take the position that all laws are fair, right and as they ought to be. I agree with au1929 that tort reform in this area is needed. I felt the same way in the O.J. Simpson case. The problem with the law today is that it has become a matter of semantics. Legalese is a smind-numbing, stultifying jargon. To the common man, the verdict of "not guilty" means that it has been judged that a person didn't do that of which that person had been accused. And, I believe, that's what it should be. It should not become an argument about the definition of "is."

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Why should murderers be given a free walk and be exempted from civil liability for wrongful death simply because the state was unable to prove all the elements of the criminal offense of murder beyond a reasonable doubt?

How can the law be wrong when it makes murderers (regardless of whether they're convicted or not) subject to civil wrongful death actions the same as a negligent doctor or a negligent ladder manufacturer et al.?

The point, Debra, is that if a person has been found to be "not guilty" by a jury of his peers then that means he has been found to not be a murderer and it should be actionable under libel and slander laws to describe and/or call him by that appelation. The not guilty verdict should be seen as prima facie evidence of a person's exemption from liability for an act of which he has been found innocent. An exception might be made in cases of so-called self-defence, where a defendant was found to be not criminally responsible even though he was the proximate cause of death. I can see the merit of a civil action in such a case. But I find no merit in prosecuting a person for monetary damages when a jury of his peers has already exonerated him/her of criminal charges, thus clearly implying that he/she had nothing to do with the demise of the victim.

You misunderstand again.

A verdict of "not guilty" does not mean the defendant was "found to NOT be a murderer" or "has been found innocent."

A verdict of "not guilty" means the prosecution failed to prove each and every element of the crime charged BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

See e.g.:

Quote:

"Not guilty is not the same as innocent," said former Santa Barbara prosecutor Craig Smith. "But our whole system is based on the premise that it's better to let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent man."

. . . In a news conference and in individual interviews after Jackson was acquitted on all 10 counts, jurors sent a clear message that they were not so much convinced of Jackson's innocence as unconvinced of his guilt, based on faulty evidence and flaky witnesses.

Their views were reminiscent of those expressed by jurors in March after they acquitted actor Robert Blake of murdering his wife, who was shot in the couple's car after they had eaten dinner at a restaurant. Jurors cited credibility problems with key prosecution witnesses - a similar issue to Jackson jurors - and the failure to overcome doubts planted by the defense.

"Do I think he's innocent? I'll never know," said Blake jury foreman Thomas Nicholson.

Jean Rosenbluth, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles who teaches law at the University of Southern California, said that while such comments may be disturbing, they point to "what makes this system great: that you have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Not guilty, but is he innocent?

0 Replies

For 30 Mil I would one appeal two take my money to another country.

0 Replies

Point taken, Debra.

0 Replies

Re: Blake Must Pay.

au1929 wrote:

BLAKE MUST PAY

Quote:

Nov 18, 2005 5:30 pm US/Eastern
(1010 WINS) (BURBANK, Calif.) Eight months after Robert Blake was acquitted at a criminal trial of murdering his wife, a civil jury decided Friday the tough-guy actor was behind the slaying, and ordered him to pay Bonnie Lee Bakley's children $30 million in damages.

The jury deliberated eight days before ruling in a 10-2 vote that the former ``Baretta'' star ``intentionally caused the death'' of Bakley, who was gunned down in 2001 in the actor's car outside a restaurant where the couple had just dined.

Blake, dressed in a black suit and tie, looked down as the verdict was read.

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_322162342.html

Could one of the legal eagles on a2k explain this. I cannot see the logic or how the law justifies this. Guilty or innocent Blake was found not guilty in the murder trial. How can this jury find him guilty? In fact how can he have been retried for the same crime. It to this uninitiated one it would appear to be a case of double jeopardy.

I probably don't quite count as one of the legal eagles, but I think I can help.

There are two different legal issues here. One is the issue of whether someone should face criminal penalties for having committed a crime. The other is whether they owe damages for their action.

It is possible to commit an act which is not a crime, but which you can still be sued for damages over.

But on the issue of double jeopardy, it is sometimes possible for people to be acquitted of charges on a state level, and then be prosecuted for the same act on a federal level.

As an example, the police who were charged with roughing up Rodney King were acquitted by the state of California. But post-riot, two of them were convicted in a federal trial.

0 Replies

Blake Must Pay.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know