Real Life Hypo--Issue Preclusion Forum

[goosey]

if someone goes into the police station and files a theft report it obviously is a criminal charge [rather than civil]---the other side then files a counter-claim [unfounded, but probably for leverage]. The two parties eventially go to court and voluntarily dismiss the charges and say they will settle it outside.

A year and a half later, latter party re-files the same exact complain. Would this claim be estopped under issue preclusion? It is in criminal court. And it was voluntarily dismissed...but the two parties did not wind up going to mediation

[uwb09]

In a criminal case, once it has been filed, only the DA can dismiss the charges. And defendants don't file counterclaims, that only exists in the realm of civil procedure.

[kalvano]

Issue preclusion does not apply to criminal cases. There is no "counterclaim" - criminal charges are brought by the state.

Also, even if it did work like that, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been adjudicated on the merits. I doubt a voluntary dismissal would count.

[vamedic03]

Issue preclusion does not apply to criminal cases. There is no "counterclaim" - criminal charges are brought by the state.

Also, even if it did work like that, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been adjudicated on the merits. I doubt a voluntary dismissal would count.

I'd add a caveat here - there may be issue preclusive effects of issues that are litigated and lost in criminal cases on subsequent civil cases.

[kalvano]

Issue preclusion does not apply to criminal cases. There is no "counterclaim" - criminal charges are brought by the state.

Also, even if it did work like that, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been adjudicated on the merits. I doubt a voluntary dismissal would count.

I'd add a caveat here - there may be issue preclusive effects of issues that are litigated and lost in criminal cases on subsequent civil cases.

That is true. If you are tried on a charge and found innocent, the state can't try you again on that same charge. As far as civil cases go, I have no idea. But it seems you can be not guilty but responsible.

[VA LawDog]

Issue preclusion does not apply to criminal cases. There is no "counterclaim" - criminal charges are brought by the state.

Also, even if it did work like that, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been adjudicated on the merits. I doubt a voluntary dismissal would count.

I'd add a caveat here - there may be issue preclusive effects of issues that are litigated and lost in criminal cases on subsequent civil cases.

This. Since Crim cases have a higher evidential standard, Issue Preclusion will almost certainly apply in the Civil case.

[Unitas]

Issue preclusion does not apply to criminal cases. There is no "counterclaim" - criminal charges are brought by the state.

Also, even if it did work like that, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been adjudicated on the merits. I doubt a voluntary dismissal would count.

I'd add a caveat here - there may be issue preclusive effects of issues that are litigated and lost in criminal cases on subsequent civil cases.

This. Since Crim cases have a higher evidential standard, Issue Preclusion will almost certainly apply in the Civil case.

I'm not sure this is true... See OJ.

"Honestly don't know but this is my attempt at humor."

[kalvano]

Issue preclusion does not apply to criminal cases. There is no "counterclaim" - criminal charges are brought by the state.

Also, even if it did work like that, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been adjudicated on the merits. I doubt a voluntary dismissal would count.

I'd add a caveat here - there may be issue preclusive effects of issues that are litigated and lost in criminal cases on subsequent civil cases.

This. Since Crim cases have a higher evidential standard, Issue Preclusion will almost certainly apply in the Civil case.

I don't think that is how it works. Issue preclusion has nothing to do with the evidentiary standard, for one thing, and prior case law suggests that a civil case is not precluded from mentioning criminal things that have been decided. As the prior poster said, see OJ.

[mythosopher]

Issue preclusion does not apply to criminal cases. There is no "counterclaim" - criminal charges are brought by the state.

Also, even if it did work like that, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been adjudicated on the merits. I doubt a voluntary dismissal would count.

I'd add a caveat here - there may be issue preclusive effects of issues that are litigated and lost in criminal cases on subsequent civil cases.

This. Since Crim cases have a higher evidential standard, Issue Preclusion will almost certainly apply in the Civil case.

I don't think that is how it works. Issue preclusion has nothing to do with the evidentiary standard, for one thing, and prior case law suggests that a civil case is not precluded from mentioning criminal things that have been decided. As the prior poster said, see OJ.

I think because the plaintiff party is different, and each party has different interests, that's why there's no issue preclusion. But I definitely know that criminal cases do not give issue preclusion in civil cases arising from the same event. And while issue preclusion itself technically does not typically think about evidence standards, because criminal cases have a higher standard, and if P loses, then it's possible that D could lose in a civil case with lower standards like preponderance. Because the outcome could be different for each case, the court would probably favor no preclusion.

[clintonius]

Crim cases can lead to issue preclusion in future civil cases, at least if the defendant was found guilty. That's what Parklane v Shore was about.

[Unitas]

Crim cases can lead to issue preclusion in future civil cases, at least if the defendant was found guilty. That's what Parklane v Shore was about.

That is true, but that is not what they are saying see:

I'd add a caveat here - there may be issue preclusive effects of issues that are litigated and lost in criminal cases on subsequent civil cases.

But not sure if there is ever an exception if a criminal trial uses the preponderance of the evidence standard for any issues. I don't know if it ever occurs.

EDIT: after reading vamedic's post again he could mean after the defendant was found guilty, because the defendant would have litigated and lost the case.

[goosey]

Issue preclusion does not apply to criminal cases. There is no "counterclaim" - criminal charges are brought by the state.

Also, even if it did work like that, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been adjudicated on the merits. I doubt a voluntary dismissal would count.

not sure what you're talking about here. I have walked into the police station and filed a criminal complaint---the other party got a notice which said "state v X" even though I filed the claim...and then they filed a complaint against me...and the court merged them into one..and mine said "state v me" and theirs was a counter-claim. but yeah I got my answer...if its vol dismissed with prejudice then preclusion applies. I so hope it is.

when we finally got to court [the other side took forrrreeevvverrrr to finally show up] my lawyer and his lawyer told the court we mutually dismiss the claims. and that was the end of that. but now...2 yrs later...this person has filed teh SAME claim again--likely just harassment. but its really annoying because 1L summer internship---background check....its not a big deal, its just a huge hassel to have to explain this stuff. And its like domestic/divorce stuff...so its even more annoying to explain bc its like "hi, i havent even started working there yet, but heres a front row seat to all my baggage" ridiculous.

[Unitas]

When I read this question I thought it meant a real hypo from class - Not a real life situation. We can't give legal advice or impressions Goosey, you know that. We aren't lawyers. errgy.

[blsingindisguise]

This. Since Crim cases have a higher evidential standard, Issue Preclusion will almost certainly apply in the Civil case.

No, it's the opposite. Since criminal cases have a higher burden of proof, it's possible to prove civil liability for something that you couldn't prove criminal liability on.

[vamedic03]

This. Since Crim cases have a higher evidential standard, Issue Preclusion will almost certainly apply in the Civil case.

No, it's the opposite. Since criminal cases have a higher burden of proof, it's possible to prove civil liability for something that you couldn't prove criminal liability on.

Y'all are both correct.

E.g. - Defendant litigates and loses on the murder charge. This, depending on a state's judgments laws, could be issue preclusive in a wrongful death suit against D.

Likewise, e.g. OJ, the state could litigate and lose on the murder charge, but in a later civil action Victim's family could win on a wrongful death suit. Additionally, the preclusive effect is moot here, because a non-party can't be bound by issue preclusion.

It's worth noting, however, that there could be other issue preclusive effects on the Defendant. Suppose that the Defendant raises an illegal search and seizure as a defense but litigates and loses on this. This could be issue preclusive against the Defendant in his subsequent 1983 suit against the police officer. But note, if D were to win on the illegal search and seizure, this would have no preclusive effect against the police officer in the subsequent 1983 suit.

[goosey]

When I read this question I thought it meant a real hypo from class - Not a real life situation. We can't give legal advice or impressions Goosey, you know that. We aren't lawyers. errgy.

yeah I know that..not looking for legal advice...just wanted to confirm whether my instincts are correct or not--also, have my last exam tomorrow and no time to talk to my lawyer until after that...and this is all I can do to save my sanity until the test is over so I dont fail it.

[kalvano]

Issue preclusion does not apply to criminal cases. There is no "counterclaim" - criminal charges are brought by the state.

Also, even if it did work like that, for issue preclusion to apply, the issue must have been adjudicated on the merits. I doubt a voluntary dismissal would count.

not sure what you're talking about here. I have walked into the police station and filed a criminal complaint---the other party got a notice which said "state v X" even though I filed the claim...and then they filed a complaint against me...and the court merged them into one..and mine said "state v me" and theirs was a counter-claim. but yeah I got my answer...if its vol dismissed with prejudice then preclusion applies. I so hope it is.

when we finally got to court [the other side took forrrreeevvverrrr to finally show up] my lawyer and his lawyer told the court we mutually dismiss the claims. and that was the end of that. but now...2 yrs later...this person has filed teh SAME claim again--likely just harassment. but its really annoying because 1L summer internship---background check....its not a big deal, its just a huge hassel to have to explain this stuff. And its like domestic/divorce stuff...so its even more annoying to explain bc its like "hi, i havent even started working there yet, but heres a front row seat to all my baggage" ridiculous.

Not the same thing at all.