|Posted on February 6, 2010 at 9:17 PM|
Following the blogs from the past of "How Far is Too Far for a Conviction" I list the final installment where a jury suddenly feels the witness is "not credible." It's always interesting to me how when a mother of three children is up on drug trafficking a jury found him quite credible, but now that it's about an authority figure the onus is suddenly much stricter.
It took 2 days after a 4-week long trial, but the "not guilty" verdict was handed down on all the counts of perjury and falsifying investigation reports.
While he has been acquitted on the criminal charges, civil charges are forthcoming. According to today's paper, "a number of civil lawsuits have been filed" and this includes the "Sheriff's office that worked with Lucas on the investigation" (Plain Dealer, 2010).
While his attorney is claiming this will help his civil cases, it doesn't entirely ensure a victory there (lest we've forgotten O.J. Simpson's criminal and civil cases). Civil cases have a lower burden of proof compared to criminal, which amounts to "preponderance of evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt" and both sides have the ability to appeal the verdict. The only difference, as the new civil plaintiffs' attorney is quoted as saying is that when Lucas testifies there won't be a guilty criminal verdict to question him about (to sway the jury).
The civil charges are not the same as the criminal and include conspiracy, failure to turn over evidence, manufacturing evidence among others.
Additionally, he is up for pending administrative violations, which his attorney is allegedly "amounts to paperwork issues" (Plain Dealer, 2010).
I will be following the civil cases and updating as needed.
(to be continued...)
Krouse, P. (2010). DEA agent Lucas acquitted of all charges in drug probe. The Plain Dealer. Saturday, 2010, February 6. A1.
Krouse, P. (2010). DEA may act on future of Lucas. The Plain Dealer. Tuesday, 2010, February 9. B1.
Categories: Problems in Justice System