srothstein wrote:it is my understanding that the immunity would have to kick in only after the civil trial judge determined the force was used in accordance with Chapter 9. If there is no prosecution, no grand jury indictment, or no conviction at a trial, it does not indicate the force was proper. It may simply indicate there was a lack of sufficient evidence.
The standard of proof for the conviction in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of proof for the civil trial is a preponderance of the evidence. This is a much lower standard. Based on this, the civil trial judge would have to see the evidence again and make his decision. The best example of how this could work is OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty by the criminal trial and still liable for the deaths by the civil trial. I know this was not Texas and he did not have the defense our law provides, but the legal principles of the second trial and review of the evidence would still hold true.
Bravo srothstein...I haven't posted in a really long time and it is nice to see the same names with the better information. The problem lies in how is justification proven? I agree that it may have to be argued all over again.