Civil Lawsuit Against P. Cox & D. Thomas

[BINGO]

Cox, Thomas sued for sexual assault | ProFootballTalk

 

[threelittleturds]

Civil suits work differently from criminal trials, right? As in, the ability to argue something without exact evidence that it happened is admissable.

It is so long ago, so pardon me if my details are sketchy, but I feel like in the OJ Simpson civil suit, they allowed a lot more evidence in that wasn't allowed in the murder trial, because they didn't need undeniable proof that it happened.

Seems like that is going to happen to Cox and Thomas. From what I got in the stories, the criminal trial the jury wasn't allowed to consider the possibility of her being drugged because it couldn't be proven that Cox or Thomas actually drugged the lady?? These stories are making it seem like this time around the jurors will be presented with that possibility and it is OK to do so because now they don't need to prove it, they can just suggest it as a likely cause for her not remembering the events of that night.

Oh, nevermind, this was at the bottom...

For both players, a much lower standard of proof applies in the civil context. While a criminal conviction may occur only with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil liability applies based on a preponderance of the evidence, which means that the weight of the evidence must tip ever so slightly in the plaintiff’s direction for the case to be proven.