Robert Blake Murdered His Wife

[NoZed Avenger]

Simply put, we just need to break this down to its most basic components.

Criminal Trial: Found not guilty. This means a jury of your peers (maybe a judge) has determined you did not commit the offense "beyond a reasonable doubt" based upon the the evidence presented. Because you found not guilty, you will not be incarcerated for a predetermined period of time.

Here is the culprit. A jury does not find that you did not commit the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury renders a verdict that the State failed to prove the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The jury may be convinced that the defedant is guilty, but determined that the proof presented was not enough to meet the higher standard.



The second aside is that a civil award is usually not "punishment," but is instead viewed as compensating the injured party.

 

[Santa666]

A couple of points:

1) I never said the driver didn't have insurance
2) What if the driver's defense was that they were not behind the wheel? It was their evil twin brother. The jury buys it.

The simple question is, do you sue the driver? Now Cleon, aka "Shanek Jr.", kept avoiding that question, because he knew I had him boxed in to a corner. If he answers "no", he looks like an idiot. If he answers "yes" (the obvious answer, and the one he desperately wanted to give - and ultimately did), he is exposed as a hypocrite.

I will happily answer.

1) Silly me, I made the same mistake Cleon did and misread.

2) If the driver claims he is not behind the wheel and is able to convince a jury he was not driving, then no, I would not sue. Yes, I would like to, but I like to hold to my principles, at least those I do have.

Side question. In your example, would such a proceeding occur in a criminal court? Just a question.

 

[Santa666]

Here is the culprit. A jury does not find that you did not commit the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury renders a verdict that the State failed to prove the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The jury may be convinced that the defedant is guilty, but determined that the proof presented was not enough to meet the higher standard.



The second aside is that a civil award is usually not "punishment," but is instead viewed as compensating the injured party.

It does not matter what you call it, or how your word it. You are right, but it is still irrelavent. After such a verdict, the law says you did not commit the crime, therefore, you should not be liable for having committed it.

Secondly, punishment/compensation, it has no bearing what label you place on it; if the goverment cannot punish you because you legally did not commit the crime, it cannot then say you must "compensate" the victim for crime it already legally found you did not commit.


Santa

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It does not matter what you call it, or how your word it. You are right, but it is still irrelavent. After such a verdict, the law says you did not commit the crime, therefore, you should not be liable for having committed it.

But that is the fundamental point. Neither the law *nor* the jury says you didn't commit the crime. They say that the crime has not been proven against you.

That is not just a matter of wording; it is a fundamental difference in what the action of the jury means.

 

[Santa666]

But that is the fundamental point. Neither the law *nor* the jury says you didn't commit the crime. They say that the crime has not been proven against you.

That is not just a matter of wording; it is a fundamental difference in what the action of the jury means.

I disagree. Legally, this is just semantics. In the eyes of the law, after a not guilty finding from a jury, you did not commit the crime. It does not matter if later evidence is provided proving conclusively that you did commit the crime. As far as the law is concerned, that not guilty verdict absolves you of the crime. This is my point. The goverment tried to convict you and could not. It cannot now say, "Well, the laws does see you as having committed the crime, but you are still liable." This is holding someone responsible for the same crime for which they have already been tried. Double Jeopardy.


Santa

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I will happily answer.

1) Silly me, I made the same mistake Cleon did and misread.

2) If the driver claims he is not behind the wheel and is able to convince a jury he was not driving, then no, I would not sue. Yes, I would like to, but I like to hold to my principles, at least those I do have.

Side question. In your example, would such a proceeding occur in a criminal court? Just a question.

1) Wow, I have confused 2 people!

2) You position is noted. You would not sue. (Note to Cleon: See how easy that is? A question is asked, and then answered)

3) Civil court. Because I am not the State.

 

[RandFan]

1) (Note to Cleon: See how easy that is? A question is asked, and then answered)

Yes, props to Santa for answering questions. His stock is high in my book.

Cleon, I like you and I think you have made some valid points. Could you respond to my question about Civil Rights Violations? Should a defendant face Federal Civil Rights Violations if found innocent of State charges?

 

[billydkid]

This is what confuses me. Was the gun Robert Blake says he went back for tested for ballistics versus the bullet which killed Bonnie Blakely? If so, what was the outcome. It would seems to me it would be easy to tell if the gun had been fired in the last 20 minutes and whether or not the bullet which killed her came from it and either way wouldn't it be pretty compelling evidence? What is the deal here?

 

[RandFan]

This is what confuses me. Was the gun Robert Blake says he went back for tested for ballistics versus the bullet which killed Bonnie Blakely? If so, what was the outcome. It would seems to me it would be easy to tell if the gun had been fired in the last 20 minutes and whether or not the bullet which killed her came from it and either way wouldn't it be pretty compelling evidence? What is the deal here?

The gun that killed Bony Blakely was never found. Somehow I find it difficult that Blake would be that stupid. If Blake killed his wife then he used a different gun. In fact Blake could think that it would work in his favor to use two guns for the very same reason you are confused.

Blake: "Hey, see, my gun hasn't been fired and the bullet doesn't match the bullet that killed Bonnie."

Investigator: "People have been known to have more than one gun Robert."

 

[bob_kark]

1. most certainly someone found "not guilty" may in fact be guilty. The criminal justice system has its flaws, both in finding the guilty, not guilty and the reverse, finding those who are not guilty, guilty. Double jeopardy exists because we are to put our trust in the findings of that system, and prosecutors cannot continually bring charges until they find a set of jurors who might side with them. **Let me note that "trusting" the findings of that system is still congruent with the appeals process because the appeals process is a part of said system.**

2. The death penalty is a far more serious punishment than jail time or a financial penalty. I will not state jail time is a more serious punishment than a financial penalty. There are many scenarios where jail time could be better. Perhaps a person has plenty of money and that money will sustain that person's family while he is in jail. If that person is slapped with a large financial penalty, it could very well ruin him and his family. This comparison is not so set in stone.


Santa

1. Do you see no problem with a guilty person having no penalty for their crime?

2. The judgement is placed against the person, not the family. The spouse's assets are not effected by the judgement, children can recieve social security. Also, if a fine from a civil judgement is placed in excess of the assets and income of a guilty party, a garnishment is typically placed on that person's payroll check until it is payed off. In addition, that person can declare bankruptcy and work out a payment plan for the judgement. I would say this is still a better outcome than jail time for the parent. I'd rather be poor than serving life in prison.

 

[CFLarsen]

This is too funny.

 

[Santa666]

1. Do you see no problem with a guilty person having no penalty for their crime?

2. The judgement is placed against the person, not the family. The spouse's assets are not effected by the judgement, children can recieve social security. Also, if a fine from a civil judgement is placed in excess of the assets and income of a guilty party, a garnishment is typically placed on that person's payroll check until it is payed off. In addition, that person can declare bankruptcy and work out a payment plan for the judgement. I would say this is still a better outcome than jail time for the parent. I'd rather be poor than serving life in prison.

Sorry, was out checking my list.

1) If someone is found not guilty by a jury of their peers, then they are in fact not guilty, therefore, no penalty. Would I be a hypocrite and change my mind if I were personally involved in a situation where I knew the person to be guilty but they managed to get acquitted? That is definitely possible. Since I am not in such a situation, I stand by my principle, not guilty also means not liable. To repeat; if, in the eyes of the law, you did not commit a crime, then you should be held liable for said crime simply because you disguise it as something else...i.e. civil rights violations.

2)This is nonsense in my opinion. Many families have a single bread winner and, at least in the US, a married couples shares assets. If the husband is laudering money, the goverment will freeze all his assets until it is sorted out. This means the wife's too. If a man is financially ruined from a civil settlement, this is also going to financially ruin his family too.

Santa

 

[Santa666]

This is too funny.

I can only assume you agree with ME, thus you find the counter arguments "too funny"

 

[CFLarsen]

I can only assume you agree with ME, thus you find the counter arguments "too funny"

Well, I just find the whole thing too funny...

 

[zenith-nadir]

This is what confuses me. Was the gun Robert Blake says he went back for tested for ballistics versus the bullet which killed Bonnie Blakely? If so, what was the outcome.

The gun that killed Bony Blakely was never found.

The murder weapon, a Walther P-38 9 mm pistol, was found the next morning in a Dumpster near the crime scene. A firearms expert testified that the gun was standard issue for the German Army during World War II, and based on its markings, it was manufactured in 1944. Detectives could not link the serial number to Blake. The actor was carrying a licensed .38 Special Smith & Wesson revolver on the night of the shooting. He surrendered the revolver to authorities, and it would soon play a role in his alibi.

(courtesy of Court TV)

 

[C S Costa]

Legalities aside, my cynical nature says "it's about the money".
Criminal trial = Huge legal fees.
Civil trial = Huge settlement and a hefty cut for the lawyers.
The lawyers keep getting to bleed the Blake stone.
Not that I have anything against lawyers, but justice seems to have little to do with this case.
/cynical rant

 

[RandFan]

(courtesy of Court TV)

Oh my, Would you look at that. I do make mistakes.

My point still stands about Blake possibly possessing more than one gun.

 

[Iamme]

Has this already been discussed here?,... as I am just jumpin in, now, and ready to go home, also:

Double-jeopardy. O.J. was quoted, regarding the second Blake trial, like a duplication of what O.J. himself went through with the regular trial and then the civil trial, that he said he would like to hear someone explain to him how this is not double jeopardy. And I agree with him.

They both were tried for the same crime twice, under some false pretenses, basically. The jurors and public basically knows each of them got away with murder. They know that each were famous and the American people prefer, like with Michael Jackson and Martha...oops, she might wreck my point...that basically people want to keep revered celebs out of prison or at least from death row. But they then feel justice can be somewhat served if they then go after all their money instead in a retrial.

I am angry that the court system is allowing the Constitution to be circumvented, even if the two of them WERE guilty.

 

[luchog]

No, that is most certainly an excuse. Double Jeopardy is to prevent exactly this sort of legal abuse--to keep people from being dragged through the legal system until a "correct" verdict is reached.

How is that "more important?" You're playing semantic games to excuse this. Have fun, I won't play along.

No, sorry, that isn't the case. There is a distinct and significant legal difference between the two.

Double Jeopardy only applies to criminal cases, and only to the government. It's purpose is to prevent abuse of the justice system and individuals by the government where there penalty is loss of life or freedom. Again, it is strictly a limitation on government.

It does not in any way apply to civil cases. In civil cases the penalty is strictly monetary. Civil cases can be retried endlessly, if allowed by the courts; and some individuals and corporations have attempted to do just that. Only a judge's refusal to allow the case to be tried (and the penalties for bringing a "nuisance lawsuit") prevents such a thing from happening far more often.

Blake, in a civil suit, is under no risk of loss of life or freedom; and therefore the standards of criminal justice do not apply. It is perfectly possible for his deceased wife's relatives to bring numerous consecutive suits; and likewise for him to sue them numerous times in return, or to file criminal harrassment charges should they attempt to do so.

It may seem like semantic games to you, but in American jurisprudence, it is a critical distinction.

 

[luchog]

He was found Not Guilty of killing his wife. He is now being punished for...Killing his wife.

Nope, he's not being punished for anything. The charge is liable in the death of his wife, which is not a finding of guilt, and the result would not be legal punishment, but a monetary liability penalty; which he has further legal recourse to dispute.