November 18, 2005

DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU DON'T HAVE A HECK OF ALOT OF DIMES:

Blake Liable for Wife's Murder: Jury in civil lawsuit awards children of Bonny Lee Bakley $30 million in damages. (Andrew Blankstein, November 18, 2005, LA Times)

A jury today found Robert Blake liable under civil law for his wife's murder four years ago, and awarded her children $30 million in damages against him.

The 72-year-old entertainer, best known for his roles in "Our Gang," "In Cold Blood" and "Baretta," was acquitted of murder earlier this year when a separate jury could not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt against him for the murder of Bonny Lee Bakley.

But with a lower burden of proof in the civil case, jurors needed only to decide that Blake was more likely than not responsible for Bakley's death. The Los Angeles County Superior Court jury in Burbank panel voted 10 to 2 to hold the actor financially liable, and 9 to 3 for the high damage amount.

"It's a good day for justice," said Eric J. Dubin, lawyer for the Bakley children.


Which raises the same question as did the O.J. Simpson debacle--if you're a family member, why not just shoot the guy? There's no way a DA will indict you, nevermind a jury convict you.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 18, 2005 10:30 PM
Comments

Vindication for Bakley's family, but a hollow award, since Blake has nowhere near $ 30 million.

He might be able to scrape up $ 300,000.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 19, 2005 7:03 AM

Which still confuses me the same way the OJ civil trial did: how can he me liable for her murder, but not guilty of it? Either he did it or he didn't, right?

Posted by: Bryan at November 19, 2005 8:07 AM

Bryan:

No. Criminal law is just a game, so you can avoid guilt, where you can't avoid justice in a real trial.

If business cases where heard in criminal court and criminals tried in civil court it would be the opposite. :)

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 8:21 AM

Hmm, what a nice, juicy piece of bait. Mmmm, bait.

Bryan: It's the difference between having to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases) and having to prove simply that something is more likely than not (civil cases).

Posted by: David Cohen at November 19, 2005 8:36 AM

I've never understood how this gets around the double-jeopardy situation. Blake was tried twice for the same crime.

Posted by: Brandon at November 19, 2005 9:16 AM

He wasn't tried for a crime.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 9:19 AM

> There's no way a DA will indict you, nevermind a jury convict you.

You have a lot more faith in the legal system than I do.

Posted by: Bob Hawkins at November 19, 2005 10:19 AM

"why not just shoot the guy?"

Do it after you get the civil award. No only can you can use his money to defend yourself, the executors will probably be more cooperative in paying up, too.


Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 19, 2005 10:50 AM

Bryan, the burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal case it is beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a criminal case is much, much higher than in a civil one, so while he could be found not guilty, he could still be found liable.

Posted by: Mikey at November 19, 2005 11:47 AM

This process nullifies, jury nullification. What nonsense. If Blake had 30 million, he wouldn't have been convicted.

Posted by: tefta at November 19, 2005 1:23 PM

Correction: if he weren't Baretta he would have been convicted.

Posted by: oj at November 19, 2005 1:30 PM
« LUCKILY, AID IS BEYOND THEM | Main | KEEP BRINGING THEIR SUGGESTIONS TO A VOTE: »