historia wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 11:29 am
Miles wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 5:00 pm
I no longer think of him as a proven rapist, but rather a convicted sexual abuser.
Technically he's not that either, since "
convicted" is generally used to describe someone found guilty in a criminal case.
Technically, it can well be considered a conviction because,
for one thing, "generally used" doesn't imply an imperative. Although you undoubtedly don't agree with me, in this instance I think "convicted" is quite apt.
This was a civil trial. So you should think of him as someone found liable for sexual abuse.
Whether you think I should or not is immaterial, and stands as nothing more than an opinion, which, while nice I guess, is of little significance. I think of Trump as someone convicted sexual abuse, and am quite content with that thought.
And just as an FYI:
"There are several key differences between criminal cases and civil cases. Criminal cases are related to crimes that affect society and come with larger and more severe punishments. These cases need hard evidence for a conviction, which is decided by a jury, and the defendant has more rights.
In comparison, civil offenses are against a specific individual or organization, and less evidence is required for conviction. The punishment is usually a monetary award as decided by a judge, and the defendant has fewer rights."
source
SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL
3 & 4. The hearsay and opinion arguments apparently overlook
the recognized exceptions to these rules.
Such exceptions fully justify
admission of a judgment of conviction in a subsequent civil action.
Official documents are a recognized exception to the hearsay rule'
and there is no reason why the judgment could not be under the official document classification.
source
.