Does Res Judicata apply in civil actions against a criminal complaint?

[john legality]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

Can a matter or detail of a case that was brought up (or could have been brought up) in a criminal conviction be raised again for argument in a civil hearing?

Yes. But it may or may not be relevant or admissible.

 

[Zigner]

This is the guy that admitted to some sort of offense against a child: https://forum.freeadvice.com/sentencing-parole-pardons-plea-bargains-29/plea-bargain-justice-604698.html

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? MA

Can a matter or detail of a case that was brought up (or could have been brought up) in a criminal conviction be raised again for argument in a civil hearing?

Send an email to the Brown and Goldman families. They'd be happy to tell you.

Or, if it means you won't start another 50 threads on the same topic... "Yes, very often". Res judicata generally requires the same parties to be involved (along with several other elements). In the example give, it was the State vs. Simpson. In the civil matter, it was the families vs. Simpson.

 

[Ohiogal]

This is the guy that admitted to some sort of offense against a child: https://forum.freeadvice.com/sentencing-parole-pardons-plea-bargains-29/plea-bargain-justice-604698.html

Oh lovely.

 

[john legality]

This is the guy that admitted to some sort of offense against a child: https://forum.freeadvice.com/sentencing-parole-pardons-plea-bargains-29/plea-bargain-justice-604698.html

Zigners the guy who points the finger at everyone else to make himself feel useful. I owe you no explanation, if you were a decent person I would probably explain myself.

Everyone who's contributing something useful, thank you for your feedback.

 

[Zigner]

Zigners the guy who points the finger at everyone else to make himself feel useful.

I wasn't pointing a finger at anyone.

I owe you no explanation, if you were a decent person I would probably explain myself.

Not asking you to, and I don't really care.

Everyone who's contributing something useful, thank you for your feedback.

One is glad to be of service.

 

[Proserpina]

Zigner, and Everyone who's contributing something useful, thank you for your feedback.

Fixed that for ya.

Yer welcome.

 

[john legality]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Ohiogal]

So the state, or an agency of the state, could be prohibited from hearing a matter that was, or could have been, heard in the original criminal hearing?

No. Not how it works.

 

[Zigner]

Hey, John, why don't you put this in one of your other threads?

 

[john legality]

No. Not how it works.

Well how does it work?

 

[Zigner]

Well how does it work?

You will need to be more specific about the information you are asking for. What is it you are trying to accomplish?

 

[john legality]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Proserpina]

So the state, or an agency of the state, could be prohibited from hearing a matter that was, or could have been, heard in the original criminal hearing?

Pretty sure that's not what was said.

Res judicata essentially means that two parties who have already litigated a case, cannot re-litigate the same case.

It does not mean that neither party can ever mention the case (or the details) in a different suit. It doesn't interfere with the appeals process, either, except from preventing either party from trying to have another bite at the apple once the appeals process is exhausted even if the final judgment is contrary to law.

But cut to the chase. What are you REALLY asking us?