In a federal case, u must be proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. In a civil case however it just has to be 51% probable that ur at fault. Which is less than they need to arrest and charge u in a federal case i bet. Thus its alot easier for the plantiff to win, than a prosecutor.Originally Posted by Sasquatch
(*Hang with me in these next 2 sections they have a point.*)
The DNA was left negelgently in the sun for 3 days by an investigator. The photo of the investigator with blood all over his show tracking it everywhere throughout the crime scene. The investigator who made the comment "When theres no evidence, its the job of a good cop to create evidence.", or something to that same degree. Plus the HOURS of tapes of that same investigator making multiple racist comments.
You cant possibly NOT have a doubt in your mind over the persons innocents or guilt. Thus though i think he did it, i would not be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed a crime and obligated as a juror to aquit him of the charges. Im just trying to explain WHY he was aquitted, in the federal case, but it was possible to lose the civil case.
