Robert Blake pulls an OJ Simpson

Post by **Roofus** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:28 pm

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 her children $30 million in damages.

The jury decided that Blake?s handyman, Earle Caldwell, did not collaborate with Blake to kill Bonny Lee Bakley.

After eight days of deliberations, the jury determined by a vote of 10-2 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 verdicts were read.

The plaintiffs had argued that Blake either killed Bakley himself or hired someone to do so. The jury was not asked to decide which theory it believed.

Blake was acquitted at his murder trial last March. But akley?s four children sued the 72-year-old actor in 2002, claiming he should be held responsible for their mother?s death and forced to pay damages.

Similarly, O.J. Simpson was acquitted at a criminal trial in 1995 of murdering his ex-wife and a friend of hers, but two years later the former football star was found responsible for the slayings in a civil case and was ordered to pay $33.5 million.

Unlike Blake?s criminal trial, where 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.

Eric Dubin, an attorney for the children, contended that Blake despised Bakley, believing she trapped him into marriage by getting pregnant, and that he decided to get rid of her so he could raise the daughter he adored, Rosie, by himself.

Link

That's not right. Either he did it or he didn't.

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:06 pm

True enough.
If you are found not guilty of a crime in criminal court, it shouldn't be allowed to go to civil court.

Rand Linden · Post by **Rand Linden** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:18 pm

Roofus wrote:That's not right. Either he did it or he didn't.

Tasty toastman wrote:True enough.
If you are found not guilty of a crime in criminal court, it shouldn't be allowed to go to civil court.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Anyone with enough money who is charged with murder and acquitted now expects a lawyer waiting in the wings to sue for wrongful death.

It's just one more fine example of how broken the U.S. legal system is.

Rand.

Tall Israeli · Post by **Tall Israeli** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:00 pm

Isn't this a case of double jeopardy and thus should be thrown out of court?

Post by **Roofus** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:31 pm

Tall Israeli wrote:Isn't this a case of double jeopardy and thus should be thrown out of court?

No, because civil court and criminal court are totally separate.

butters · Post by **butters** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:56 am

I think the better thing to do would be to make criminal courts be 2/3 majority to convict.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 4:59 am

Butters wrote:I think the better thing to do would be to make criminal courts be 2/3 majority to convict.

...how about no?

az_bont · Post by **az_bont** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:04 pm

Tasty toastman wrote:True enough.
If you are found not guilty of a crime in criminal court, it shouldn't be allowed to go to civil court.

In the UK, US and other countries with a legal system based on English law, a civil court works on a "balance of probability". If the jury or judge believes there's a 51% chance you're responsible, that's enough.

When there's only money at stake, and that money is only meant to be enough to compensate, then the person most likely to deserve it will end up with it at the end of the trial.

That said, the US practice of allowing juries to decide how much money should be awarded is wrong, in my opinion. Most of the time, they choose completely unrealistic numbers that are more intended to punish the person who has to pay, and not merely compensate the person who suffered the damage. This is especially true in personal injury cases.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:02 pm

az_bont wrote:
Tasty toastman wrote:True enough.
If you are found not guilty of a crime in criminal court, it shouldn't be allowed to go to civil court.
In the UK, US and other countries with a legal system based on English law, a civil court works on a "balance of probability". If the jury or judge believes there's a 51% chance you're responsible, that's enough.

When there's only money at stake, and that money is only meant to be enough to compensate, then the person most likely to deserve it will end up with it at the end of the trial.

That said, the US practice of allowing juries to decide how much money should be awarded is wrong, in my opinion. Most of the time, they choose completely unrealistic numbers that are more intended to punish the person who has to pay, and not merely compensate the person who suffered the damage. This is especially true in personal injury cases.

Of course, there really is no just compensation when it comes to someone being dead.