Even after groundwork for a civil case has been laid, the whole shebang can fall apart before the plaintiff can collect a hefty check. It helps a great deal if the accused is convicted. But, that is not a guarantee of a verdict granting the accuser significant damages in a civil suit that follows. A jury can believe the criminal case disposed of the matter, or that the plaintiff did not suffer sufficient harm to justify awarding high damages. Without a conviction, the road becomes rougher. The accuser must establish the injury occurred and the accused is responsible without the record from the criminal case to rely on. Being perceived as a loser can impact how jurors treat the accuser in the civil case. Though the burden of proof is less stringent — by a preponderance of the evidence — jurors may be more skeptical of injuries that allegedly occurred during a crime than they would be under other circumstances. A more typical scenario, for example one involving an accident, provides objective evidence to be judged. A civil case based on allegations of an assault or rape will turn mainly on the credibility of the persons involved.

It isn't possible to know whether Bryant's accuser reached the conclusion she could make a lot of money from the alleged assault on her own, or, was misled by older people who should have known better. Either way, the situation points to a failing of education in our society. I believe teenagers and adults should have at least a basic understanding of how the criminal and civil justice systems work. Such knowledge would have prevented this young woman doing what might be lasting harm to her own reputation.

Note: This entry also appeared at Mac-a-ro-nies.