Why did double jeopardy not apply in the O.J. case?
<p>On 1995 O.J. was found not guilty in the famous murder case. This was in criminal court and after that he was tried for the same thing in <em>civil court</em> - except this time it was called <em>wrongful death</em> rather than <em>murder</em>. He was found "responsible" and ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages. How is this not <em>double jeopardy</em>? After being tried and found not guilty he was tried for the exact same thing in a different court.</p>

<p><a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1997-02-06/news/1997037027_1_simpson-civil-trial-second-trial" rel="nofollow">This</a> source says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The catch is that the second trial involved civil charges, not
  criminal charges. The penalties are different -- imprisonment or even
  death for guilt in the criminal charge of first degree murder, but
  only financial penalties for the civil charges of being found liable
  for a death.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Just because you call it a different name doesn't mean you aren't being tried for the same thing. If this is an actual loophole, doesn't it allow resourceful adversaries to lock their victims into court battles indefinitely?</p>

<p>"Double jeopardy" applies to a criminal proceeding, that is one that needs to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," and involves criminal sanctions such as jail time. Once OJ was acquitted of criminal charges, he couldn't be tried again as a "criminal."</p>

<p>The second trial was a civil trial, with a "lesser" standard of proof (preponderance of evidence), and lesser "damages" (money, not jail time). So even though the facts were the same, OJ was accused of violating a different standard, that is a different "law" so to speak. He could be tried for a "tort" just not a crime. Or put another way, "wrongful death" is not the same as murder. The latter requires intent. Wrongful death suggests "tortious" negligence, but not necessarily intent.</p>

<p>When filed closely in time civil cases are usually delayed until resolution of criminal charges to ensure fair criminal jury trials. Civil cases then proceed once criminal trials are over...unless civil lawsuits are withdrawn.</p>
<p>Of course civil trials also allow endless retrials in higher level courts and changes in venue/jurisdictions etc. ... all assuming the next higher court is interested in weighing in on the case. Thus deeper pockets often &quot;win&quot; when facing an ordinary citizen simply by going to a higher court one more time than they can afford. So in fact civil cases only have &quot;double jeopardy&quot; versus the same plaintiff in the same court.</p>

united-states criminal-law civil-law murder