• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

criminal to civil

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

N

nullify

Member
Ohio

I had a family friend, who lives elsewhere and is a lawyer, help me with court. I guess I thought I could do the task, but I did rather poorly as my own lawyer. It was for a failure to yield, left turn citation that resulted in an accident.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything damaging, but is it true that all information at the criminal trial may be used against me if I am sued? Will it be bad because I was such a terrible lawyer? I thought my points were clear, but obviously I did a poor job.
 


J

JETX

Senior Member
nullify said:
is it true that all information at the criminal trial may be used against me if I am sued?
Click to expand...
Your testimony at the criminal proceeding, being 'on the record', can be used to challenge any claims you make in the civil trial. As long as you didn't lie then, or lie now, there shouldn't be any real damage to 'surprise' you.
However, one HUGE problem for your... your conviction in the criminal court makes any civil proceeding pretty much a slam dunk. The only real issue is the amount of damages.
 
M

moburkes

Senior Member
nullify said:
Ohio

I had a family friend, who lives elsewhere and is a lawyer, help me with court. I guess I thought I could do the task, but I did rather poorly as my own lawyer. It was for a failure to yield, left turn citation that resulted in an accident.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything damaging, but is it true that all information at the criminal trial may be used against me if I am sued? Will it be bad because I was such a terrible lawyer? I thought my points were clear, but obviously I did a poor job.
Click to expand...
You didn't give any details, but when youmake a left turn in front of someone who is going straight, generally, you ARE goingto be considered at fault. I'm not really sure what you were defending yourself against.
 
N

nullify

Member
Well I kind of guessed it would be difficult to put fault completely on her. I had two witnesses but I could only afford to have one there. Then, neither saw the accident. I wanted to put forward circumstantial evidence basically. A lawyer probably would have been more effective with what I had. The family friend and lawyer seemed to think my case was good.

So why is the civil case a slam dunk? Although I was found guilty, she made some statements that indicated she was reckless. But then again, I'm no lawyer or adjuster. With my "witnesses" I would not have been able to prove no-fault. I'm just hoping for some solid comparative negligence. Knowing this, do you think the civil case is still a slam dunk? I hope not.

=(
 
S

seniorjudge

Senior Member
nullify said:
Well I kind of guessed it would be difficult to put fault completely on her. I had two witnesses but I could only afford to have one there. Then, neither saw the accident. I wanted to put forward circumstantial evidence basically. A lawyer probably would have been more effective with what I had. The family friend and lawyer seemed to think my case was good.

So why is the civil case a slam dunk? Although I was found guilty, she made some statements that indicated she was reckless. But then again, I'm no lawyer or adjuster. With my "witnesses" I would not have been able to prove no-fault. I'm just hoping for some solid comparative negligence. Knowing this, do you think the civil case is still a slam dunk? I hope not.

=(
Click to expand...
Q: So why is the civil case a slam dunk?

A: The criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the civil case needs much less proof. Think OJ Simpson.
 
N

nullify

Member
I thought the criminal case is to prove I did something wrong, somewhat regardless of what the other person did. And then in civil, the other person may have been partially at fault. Is that right?
 
S

seniorjudge

Senior Member
nullify said:
I thought the criminal case is to prove I did something wrong, somewhat regardless of what the other person did. And then in civil, the other person may have been partially at fault. Is that right?
Click to expand...
The other person will say that the criminal case proved you were 100% liable.
 
N

nullify

Member
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like if I get sued and I get a lawyer, it'll be impossible for me to get any comparative negligence? And this is because I attempted the criminal trial myself, did a poor job as a lawyer, and lost?
 
S

seniorjudge

Senior Member
nullify said:
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like if I get sued and I get a lawyer, it'll be impossible for me to get any comparative negligence? And this is because I attempted the criminal trial myself, did a poor job as a lawyer, and lost?
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the phrase, "He shot himself in the foot!"
 
N

nullify

Member
Argh... I spoke to a lawyer. He said that if I plead guilty in criminal court, it is admissible in civil as an admission of negligence. In my case though where I am found guilty, it is only the opinion of the judge. Then it is not admissible. Before speaking to the lawyer, my adjuster had the other opinion that you have stated. He said that being found guilty is a factor that very likely will be brought up in court. Who am I supposed to believe?! Any pointers on where I can find and how to look for rules on such a thing?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top