Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

Skip · 05-14-2004, 09:02 PM

The civil & criminal proceedings are proceeding on two distinctly different tracks.

The burden of proof in the civil proceedings is much less than that in the criminal proceedings (preponderance of the evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt).

The civil case is extremely strong and will continue regardless of the outcome of the appeal. It is not uncommon in cases like this to have the criminal conviction overturned while gaining a victory in civil court.

And remember, the victim's family has temporarily seized an extremely sizable portion of Littlefield's estate in anticipation of this contingency. This will be available to the plaintiffs should they prevail in civil court.

Justice is better served when the guilty party assumes full moral and financial responsibiltiy for their wrongdoing. Therefore I believe the US District Court's ruling against Littlefield is actually not only a vicxtory for the plaintiffs, but a victory for every policy holder that will not now have to partake in a financial burden caused by the defendant's negligence.

Hopefully the appeal will be overturned in the not to distant future and the convicted party can begin paying his debt to society and allowing the victim's family the closure they deserve.

05-14-2004, 09:02 PM	#3
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Victim's family (and the public) still greatly ahead.... The civil & criminal proceedings are proceeding on two distinctly different tracks. The burden of proof in the civil proceedings is much less than that in the criminal proceedings (preponderance of the evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt). The civil case is extremely strong and will continue regardless of the outcome of the appeal. It is not uncommon in cases like this to have the criminal conviction overturned while gaining a victory in civil court. And remember, the victim's family has temporarily seized an extremely sizable portion of Littlefield's estate in anticipation of this contingency. This will be available to the plaintiffs should they prevail in civil court. Justice is better served when the guilty party assumes full moral and financial responsibiltiy for their wrongdoing. Therefore I believe the US District Court's ruling against Littlefield is actually not only a vicxtory for the plaintiffs, but a victory for every policy holder that will not now have to partake in a financial burden caused by the defendant's negligence. Hopefully the appeal will be overturned in the not to distant future and the convicted party can begin paying his debt to society and allowing the victim's family the closure they deserve.