Legal Question in Civil Rights Law in California

Re: not guilty finding in criminal trial

No. There's a different burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the jury has to find that the case was -not- proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it's merely a preponderance of evidence.

Think of what happened with OJ. He was not convicted of the killings, but he was found civilly liable for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. And they're still attempting to collect from him, some 12 or more years after the civil jury verdict.

That said, if witnesses are no longer available, some of their testimony possibly could be used in the civil trial, with the criminal trial testimony being referred to as from "another proceeding."

Re: not guilty finding in criminal trial

No. And, admissible for what purpose? 'Not guilty' doesn't 'prove' anything except that there was insufficient finding of guilt to a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard. That standard doesn't apply in civil cases; it's easier to prove to a 'preponderance of the evidence'. If you're suing or being sued in civil court about conduct that is also a crime, and you don't know all the rules of evidence and procedure and how to use them, you clearly need an attorney to handle the matter successfully. Feel free to contact me if serious about doing so, and the case is in SoCal courts.