That’s clear. If I understand it correctly, all it would take is a public prosecutor to bring criminal charges. Even if the criminal case against Trump in this fraud case ended in an acquittal, the civil judgment would still stand. I’m just trying to understand what the prosecution’s thinking might be. Perhaps that they wanted to wait for the civil trial first in order to have a better chance with the jury in a criminal trial (even if the jury should in theory decide completely impartially, someone who has already been convicted of fraud will probably seem less credible). Another consideration could be related to the strange fact that an acquittal in the US prevents a retrial of the same case (as far as I know). Either way, it’s all rather strange, I think.
Different standards of evidence, for one. The same evidence may not prove his guilt based on criminal statutes.
That’s clear. If I understand it correctly, all it would take is a public prosecutor to bring criminal charges. Even if the criminal case against Trump in this fraud case ended in an acquittal, the civil judgment would still stand. I’m just trying to understand what the prosecution’s thinking might be. Perhaps that they wanted to wait for the civil trial first in order to have a better chance with the jury in a criminal trial (even if the jury should in theory decide completely impartially, someone who has already been convicted of fraud will probably seem less credible). Another consideration could be related to the strange fact that an acquittal in the US prevents a retrial of the same case (as far as I know). Either way, it’s all rather strange, I think.
It’s not the easiest thing to sort out without being able to ask local DAs.