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.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Ah, but I believe the charge was different in the Federal trial. At the state level, the cops were found not guilty of assault and battery, I believe. The Federal charge was violation of King's civil rights. In other words, it was treated as a hate crime in Federal court, whereas at the state level no such charge had been made. It's a neat trick for getting around the double-jeopardy protection.

May I ask you a question? (Other than that one.) If someone is found guilty of murder, can a family member of the murder victim also sue in a civil court?