from
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence
A strong personal dislike of mine, and not at all limited to this case: I really hate seeing a wrongful death suit filed before the criminal case is settled -- especially when the criminal case seems to be moving along pretty much on the time track expected.
I look at the following language, lifted out of the civil suit document macon.com posted:
Seeing this statement presented in a civil action
before any criminal conviction, confession, or acquittal...and knowing that the standard of proof the civil jury will be instructed to use is much lower than that in a criminal trial, something in me just bucks up and says: "Yeah? Says who?"
Especially when I read on and find this:
OK -- and how much of the criminal prosecution's evidence does that include? What about not-yet-completed forensic studies? What if some heavy exonerating evidence turns up between the time of the civil case and criminal case, I always wonder: If the civil suit has been settled
against the defendant, does he/she have any recourse? I think probably not.
Some other reasons about why civil-before-criminal bothers me are touched on in the macon.com story about the suit. It doesn't seem right to force the defense to choose between tipping its hand or risking incurring for the defendant a hefty monetary penalty (or both). Is the prosecution going to spill everything it has to the civil lawyers -- and thus, by default, to the defense? No, I think not. The civil lawyers just get to take bits and pieces and spin their own tale, independent of the theory the criminal case may take following the bulk of the evidence.
Oh, they have to "prove" it, if it goes as far as a jury -- but just to preponderance of evidence, I think, not beyond a reasonable doubt. And, in the meantime, what effects do the publicity surrounding the suit and the allegations made by the civil suit language, crafted for that lower standard, have on the populace from which the criminal jury will be drawn?
Don't get me wrong: Lauren's life
was precious, beyond valuing. Besides that, I tend to
believe that what the Giddingses, at least, want most from this is answers and the rest of Lauren. And I want those for them, too. I don't know that this course will get those for them, though.
As for a federal judge ordering that SM's grandfather's farm be searched, I find it hard to imagine that happening, not on the weight of what I read in the civil suit document alone, anyhow. Now if there's GPS or cell phone records from SM that we don't know about, something like that -- well, then maybe a different story.
Then again, there are some powerful players attached to the periphery of this case -- maybe somebody has that much influence. I don't know.
Personally, I wish the farm could just be searched and have that done with. If Lauren's there, I want her found. I just don't think she's there. If Stephen killed her, I think they'd do better to search the state parks, etc., in that area. I think, if he was going to travel that far at all, he wouldn't have taken her to his grandfather's place -- jmo. (Although I will admit, I occasionally have the stray thought that, after all this time, and with the grandfather gone, someone else could have put her there, by now... straying off into conspiracy-land there though, I guess.)