It is ofcourse unlikely that he will have any assets with which to pay a judgement but they will use the civil judgment to seize any earnings from book rights or the like.

Laci's mother is hurting, thats understandable, but shouldnt she show respect for the law and wait for the trial to hear ALL the evidence from both sides before declaring her son in law guilty of murder?

BTW, Nicole's family has yet to receive one dime from OJ, yet he lives a pretty cushy life in Florida. From what I understand they can't touch his pension, but they could take any money he earns from working... which is probably why he just spends his days golfing, oops, I meant... looking for the 'real' killers...

IMO

Civil actions are determined usually by 'mere preponderance of the evidence' and do not determine a person's guilt only that he in fact committed the act. The fact that a criminal jury acquitted him or convicted him is not determinative for a civil jury.

In a juvenile proceeding, an accused might be determined to be 'not guilty of burglary' (standard was 'beyond a reasonable doubt) but he might also be adjudged to be a juvenile delinquent for having committed that burglary (standard was 'mere preponderance of the evidence). So a Judge could say at the conclusion of the trial: Not Guilty of the burglary charge, but found to be a delinquent because he committed the burglary. Same evidence, different standards of proof.

In OJ's case, he was allowed to use certain assets to pay for his security staff, etc. and thus he uses funds for that purpose and his creditors can seize anything they find, but since he doesn't have to work, he won't work because the money would go to his creditors, not him.

Many people are judgement proof because they don't have assets or those assets have been so well hidden behind 'trusts established in secrecy havens' that no one can prove its really an asset of the debtor.

One ex-wife in Florida was killed by her multi-millionaire ex-husband, but he used alot of the money to pay his criminal lawyers and during the criminal trial he moved assets to offshore trusts so that his children's civil judgement against him for murdering their mother resulted in headlines about millions, but nary a penny so far.

It is! He can not be re-tried on the criminal charges.

But a civil suit does not seek to impose any criminal charges or criminal punishment on the defendant.

It seeks monetary damages for the acts that he committed.

To use the Juvenile Court analogy again:

The Judge who heard the evidence can say:

Having heard the evidence, I find you NOT GUILTY of the crime of breaking that window, but I do find you to be a juvenile delinquent because you broke that window.

The civil suit that might later follow is just to make the little brat pay for the window, it does not impose any criminal penalties on him, it just makes him pay for the new window.

If 'not guilty' doesnt mean not guilty, what does it mean?

Why should I have to pay for a window that I was found not guilty of breaking?

Why should I pay $$$ to someone's family if I'm found not guilty of murdering their loved one?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

It almost seems like double-jeapardy to me.

January 24, 2004
By SUSAN HERENDEEN
BEE STAFF WRITER

An attorney for Scott Peterson on Friday said the Stanislaus County Superior Court should throw out a lawsuit that seeks to bar his client from profiting from the death of his wife and unborn child.

The lawsuit, brought by Sharon Rocha, Laci Peterson's mother, asks the court to keep any payments from book or movie deals in a trust account until a verdict is reached in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial.

Peterson's lawyer said the court should dismiss the case, because the complaint is filed under California's "Son of Sam" law, which was struck down nearly two years ago. Complete article at the link:

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/8045763p-8907379c.html

Personally, I have no problem saying I think the evidence points to Scott as guilty - the thought that he could get away with murder and make afortune off the crime is upsetting

BUT

I will watch the trial with an open mind, let's see what happens in court.

That's how I see it anyway.

Our system is lacking greatly. Some innocent people go to the chair, while some guilty are free as a bird out on the golf courses! :(

We should all fear this so-called justice system It just doesn't work, IMO!

In a criminal trial, it is beyound a reasonable doubt.

Her reason for the timing of the suit, is most likely because of the statue of limitation.

Modesto, Ca; it must be nice to have a DA that will do his job. Over here in east TX, Cass County that is, they won't do anything about a murderer.

Civil Court sometimes is the only course to get justice. We won our civil trial.

It reads like this, "The court makes further findings with respect to Steven Jones' wrongful death claim by clear and convincing evidence."

The only evidence that we had to present was the death file. We begged for help all the way to the president, and got nothing. It is my opinion that she should take it all the way. Scott Peterson should not profit at all.

And in my opinion, he is guilty, from what little evidence I have heard. But I will weigh all the evidence once it is heard and voice my opinion again, should it change. But unless the defense has that "real killer" as they have proclaimed many times, then I don't see my mind changing.

He should be blocked from making any money from their deaths until after a jury decides his fate. Sharon had and has every right to sue.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

I thought that they would wait to pay out the insurance money until the questions surrounding her death were solved?

Edited to add: See new thread posted.

(Which also happens to be my birthday)