UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JERRY NEHL BOYLAN, Defendant.

CR 2:20-cr-00600-GW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JERRY NEHL BOYLAN, Defendant.

Initial filings from December 1, 2020

Interested in learning more about the federal criminal process? Some light reading references are linked below. The last, "Principles of Federal Prosecution" is the most comprehensive reference.

Steps In The Federal Criminal Process

Criminal Cases

9-27.000 - Principles Of Federal Prosecution

 

Thanks. Can you describe, or provide a link to a description of, the interplay between civil and criminal cases in situations like this?

For context, a person I know's father likely committed a crime. He was charged, plead not guilty, and was acquitted at trial. Once the criminal proceeding was done a civil suit was filed by the families, and the insurance company settled. (It was a paltry settlement, definitely a "go away kid, you're botherin' me" amount that was probably cheaper than defending the case at trial. The victims were not going to get any sympathy, and there was no physical evidence.)

From this experience I guessed the plaintiffs were letting the state do the heavy lifting of collecting evidence before filing the civil suit, or else some aspect of legal procedure required the criminal trial to go forward first.

The Conception case seems more complex, with the civil side having multiple defendants.

Any thoughts?

 

In the U.K. the level of negligence in a criminal case is higher than for a civil case. Therefore, easier to prove in a civil case.

 

As it is in the US. It goes from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'preponderance of evidence'

 

Criminal law - regulates individuals' bad acts to protect the public
Civil law - regulates private rights of parties

Natural rights of man - a fellow name John Locke. Relates to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, fundamental rights, criminal law, and more stuff.

Locke’s Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
John Locke, Two Treatises (1689) | Online Library of Liberty​

Ok, let's look at one of the most infamous cases, California v OJ Simpson and the follow-on civil case. Google is your friend, the link below is basic, a search of Google Scholar will yield a different type of analysis.

O.J. Simpson Trial: Different Results in Criminal, Civil Courts​

Double Jeopardy?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=885240111461112288&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
​

Most everyone knows that OJ did not have to testify in his criminal case. But, what about the civil case? Could OJ have asserted his 5th amendment rights in the civil case? Two appellate cases give guidance.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
120 F3d 1419 United States v. Gecas | OpenJurist​

Easy explanation, questions, and answers in a Q&A format, if you are bored and want an easy trip thru the weeds

https://quizlet.com/186257970/hitt-1253-legal-and-ethics-test-1-mcway-chapters1-3-flash-cards/​

 

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was thinking of whether ordering mattered. Can a civil case and criminal case proceed at the same time? Does criminal usually precede civil for some reason?

I'm not getting at standards for a judgment (no reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence) or compelling testimony.

 

How would a defendant be able to be in two courts at the same time?

 

Exactly: Who gets dibs? Criminal? First case to the court?

 

I am not a lawyer, but I’d think that if I were suing someone in a civil case that also had a criminal component, I might wait until the criminal case was over so I had access to what was discovered in the criminal case.

But that’s completely from a layman’s perspective. There may be very good reasons not to wait?

 

Well you cannot have both trials at same time and evidence allowed can be different. Judges and juries are different and trials may not even be in the same city. Criminal and Civil lawyers most likely to be different as well.