• scutiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Determined in civil court, which requires less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” that criminal court does. However it has been determined that Carroll claiming he raped her is not slander. So while he wouldn’t be behind bars for it, he definitely deserves to be, for that and many other reasons.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Determined by a preponderance of the evidence (this standard is essentially slightly more likely than not as opposed to the stronger standards of clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt) to be civilly liable for sexual abuse (he was found not liable for rape because while the jury believed it had been proved more likely than not she was penetrated by him they didn’t believe it had been proved more likely than not that he used his penis to do so) for which he owes her damages, and then further damages for suing her for defamation for calling him a rapist (the judge there ruled that while he had not been found civilly liable for rape in the trial that the conduct he was found liable for met the colloquial definition of rape if not the NY penal code definition of such).

      It’s sort of like how OJ Simpson was never found guilty of murder, but he was found civilly liable for wrongful death for the same killings.