If someone is found innocent in a criminal case, but settles in a civil case...

Couldn't fit full title, but should read:
"If someone is found innocent in a criminal case, but settles or is found guilty in a civil case, what are they in your mind?"

Very curious about this, because many people interpret the person's guilt or innocence based on what happens in court, but there are plenty of times where you get contradicting verdicts.

The reason I ask is because you'll often find other people/mob-think will attack anyone who disagrees with the perceived innocence/guilt of the verdict when it is straight forward (only 1 court, or 2 courts that both match). But when the 2 courts don't match, it shows that the courts in general aren't a be-all-end-all answer.

The logical answer to me would be: "Just read about the details yourself and make up your own mind", and I'd like to think most people would feel the same, but it doesn't play that way in theory.

So back to the topic title, without factoring in a specific case, how do you generally interpret this?

Whose alt is this, first off? Just curious.

Secondly, it really, really depends on a case-by-case basis. There are too many variables in civil and criminal cases.

If someone settles in a civil case though, it's not necessarily an admission of guilt. It's just trying to put an end to the issue before it costs too much money.

I dont have a lot of knowledge of cases to inform my opinion here, but the thing that immediately comes to mind is OJ

technically no one is actually found innocent in a criminal case, the jury just rules on whether or not the persons guilt has been proven by the prosecution. The verdict isnt necessarily a clear point in favor of the person not doing the crime.

so I might generally be more inclined to believe they were actually guilty if they are found guilty in a civil case but not guilty in the criminal case. but it really depends on the specific details of the situation.

AdmittedFelon posted...

The logical answer to me would be: "Just read about the details yourself and make up your own mind"

Exactly this. In the criminal context, there are plenty of wrongful convictions (lots of juries convict on evidence that I personally find sketchy and would never vote to convict) but also 100% guilty people who walk (e.g. proof was found against them but it was suppressed on a technicality). And I don't necessarily have a lot of faith in the average juror, whether civil or criminal.

Though in real life I don't have time/inclination to look up the details of every case. So if I hear "Defendant was found guilty of X" then I would casually presume they did it unless people bring up evidence to the contrary, or the situation is inherently sketchy/improbable.

If defendant was found not guilty, but found civilly liable...I would probably just go "hmm need more info."

If defendant was found not guilty, but settled a civil suit, then I would lean towards thinking they're innocent. Settlement is really a null-tell; maybe they're just throwing money to make the annoyance of court proceedings go away, or because they (understandably) don't want to leave things up to the whims of jurors.

My opinion on someone's guilt isn't dependent on the results of a trial, so any discrepancy wouldn't really be relevant.

For the record, even jurors in a criminal trial are not supposed to convict someone just because they think the person is guilty. They are supposed to be ruling on whether or not the prosecution has proved it.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

so I might generally be more inclined to believe they were actually guilty if they are found guilty in a civil case but not guilty in the criminal case. but it really depends on the specific details of the situation.

mostly agree with this. given a guilty verdict in civil court and innocent verdict in criminal court, i would tend to believe that a crime or offense did occur but that the evidence in the case doesn't meet the standard for criminal court ("beyond a reasonable doubt") or that the criminal prosecutors just messed everything up in the trial (which happens surprisingly often!).

obviously it would depend on the particular case and its details but I think more often than not I would end up believing that the defendant did commit the crime