Robert Blake (of Baretta fame) was found liable for the killing of his wife and has been ordered to pay $30 million in damages.
Of course, in criminal trials, all members of the jury have to be in agreement to pass a verdict. In a civil case like this... you just need over half of them to come to judgment. I've done jury duty... and a jury of your "peers" isn't exactly full of your peers.
<soapbox>
The jury pool is full of those who were too stupid to get out of it or had nothing better to do (and before you go there... I actually wanted to do it). I'm not saying that all jurors are slack jawed sheep... but many of them are. I suppose that's what the lawyers want... malleable minds... but it scares the hell out of me that these mouth breathers are allowed to pass judgment on someone else. There should be a basic intelligence test first (with emphasis on following directions).
To me... civil trials after an acquittal is often used as a way of circumventing the rights of the accused. Once found not guilty of a criminal charge, the law states that you may not be charged with that particular crime again. Apparently... that only sticks to the criminal court... civil court is fair game.
Is Blake actually guilty of that they hit him with? Not according to his criminal trial. Why the hell should he have to go through it all over again?
Apparently, our system is deeply flawed.
</soapbox>
damaged people dot com
We're damaged people, drawn together, by subtleties that we are not aware of
