Quote:
Originally Posted by mlmpetert
To the law guys out there, am I right in assuming that if things are going the defense's way that they will very likely ask the judge to make an immunity or affirmative defense or other type of ruling that prevents or limits criminal or civil liability before jury deliberations even start?
|
i can only tell you maryland law. there is a strange twist.
1) if a person pays a traffic fine by mail = cant use in civil trial (this only applied to fine traffic citations and not murder) reason is that the person may have just paid the fine out of convenience and it is not considered an admission of guilt
2) if a person pleads guilty in open court = can be used as admissible evidence of negligence in the civil trial
3) if the person pleads not guilty and is found guilty after a trial = the conviction can not be used in the civil trial as evidence of negligence. the person's statements under oath (if they took the stand) can be used in the civil trial for impeachment/inconsistent statement issues if they arise in the civil trial.
its weird, you would think that if a person was found guilty where the burden of proof was the highest standard of "beyond a reas doubt", that it surely should be admissible for a civil trial with the lesser burden of proof being a "preponderance of evidence" = is something more likely than not likely = 51% true vs 49% not true.