Breaking

Latest criminal justice updates and case developments

Assault

Can You Be Acquitted but Sued in Civil Court for the Same Act?

A Florida jury acquitted former deputy Eddie Duran of manslaughter on Oct. 1, 2026, but the Fortson family's federal civil rights suit, filed in May 2025, is still pending. Why a not guilty verdict does not end civil exposure, and what to do if you are sued.

Share
A blank legal pad and manila folder sit on a dark wood table between two cooling coffee cups, with a client's and a lawyer's hands resting nearby.

Yes. You can be acquitted but sued in civil court for the same conduct. A not guilty verdict means only that the state failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases use a lower standard, and double jeopardy bars a second criminal punishment, not a lawsuit seeking money damages.

That gap between a criminal verdict and civil liability is now playing out in Florida. On Thursday, Oct. 1, 2026, an Okaloosa County jury found former Okaloosa County Sheriff's deputy Eddie Duran, 38, not guilty of manslaughter with a firearm in the May 3, 2024 shooting of Senior Airman Roger Fortson, 23, according to Reuters, WEAR-TV and Yahoo News. The verdict ended the state's criminal case. It did not end the federal civil rights lawsuit Fortson's family filed in May 2025, which remains pending.

If you have been acquitted, or you are facing charges and wondering what a win at trial would actually protect you from, this case is a useful map.

The case: what the jury decided

Deputies went to Fortson's apartment in Fort Walton Beach on a disturbance call. Body camera video showed Fortson opened the door holding a legally owned handgun at his side, pointed toward the floor, and Duran fired multiple times at close range, as reported by ABC News and Reuters. Prosecutors presented evidence that the complaint deputies were responding to did not involve Fortson, Reuters reported.

Duran testified that he acted in self-defense. "I thought I was dead. As soon as the door opened and I saw it, I immediately thought, 'I'm dead,'" he told jurors, according to ABC News. His attorney, Rod Smith, told WEAR the shooting was a "tragedy" but not a crime, Reuters reported. Sheriff Eric Aden had fired Duran about a month after the shooting, saying the use of deadly force was not reasonable, and Yahoo News reports an internal investigation found Duran's life was not in danger when he fired.

Duran faced up to 30 years in prison if convicted (ABC News). After a four-day trial, the jury deliberated roughly two hours before acquitting him. State Attorney Ginger Bowden Madden's office urged a "peaceful" public response, Reuters reported.

What "not guilty" legally means

A not guilty verdict is not a finding of innocence. It is a finding that the government did not meet its burden. As prosecutors put it after the Duran verdict, the result means "the state did not prove the manslaughter charge beyond a reasonable doubt to every juror," according to Yahoo News.

The U.S. Supreme Court said the same thing decades ago. In One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States (1972), the Court held that an acquittal "may have only represented 'an adjudication that the proof was not sufficient to overcome all reasonable doubt.'" That narrow meaning is why an acquittal does not automatically decide a later civil case.

The civil bar is lower

Criminal juries must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard in American law. Civil juries are not. In Florida, civil juries decide by the "greater weight of the evidence," which the state's standard jury instruction defines as "the more persuasive and convincing force and effect of the entire evidence in the case" (Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 401.3).

A steep, empty stone staircase rises toward fluted courthouse columns and a plain pediment under harsh midday sun.

In plain terms: a criminal jury asks, "Are we sure?" A civil jury asks, "Which side's version is more convincing?" The same body camera footage, the same witnesses and the same testimony can fall short of the first question and still answer the second against you.

Why double jeopardy does not stop a lawsuit

The Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause protects you from being tried twice for the same crime. It does not protect you from being sued. In One Lot Emerald Cut Stones, the Supreme Court explained that the clause "prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally." A civil lawsuit for damages is not a criminal punishment, so the clause does not apply.

There is a second limit worth knowing in general terms. Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court 7-2 in Gamble v. United States (2019), state and federal governments are separate sovereigns and can each prosecute the same conduct. As the Court put it, "a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute," and the reverse is also true. An acquittal in state court protects you from a second state prosecution for the same offense. It is not a promise about every government.

Which civil claims you could face depends on who you are

Police officers and other government actors: Section 1983

The main federal civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, makes liable "every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State" deprives someone of rights secured by the Constitution and federal law. Because it reaches only people acting under government authority, it covers officers and officials, not private citizens.

State law cannot shield that conduct. In Martinez v. California (1980), the Supreme Court said that "conduct by persons acting under color of state law which is wrongful under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or § 1985(3) cannot be immunized by state law."

Officers do have a federal defense: qualified immunity. It protects government officials from suit unless they violated a "clearly established" statutory or constitutional right. Under the test from Saucier v. Katz, courts ask two questions: do the facts show a constitutional violation, and was the right clearly established at the time of the conduct?

The Fortson family's suit fits this category. Represented by attorney Ben Crump, the family filed it in May 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola, according to CBS News and Mid Bay News. WEAR describes it as a five-count complaint. Defendants include Duran, then-Sheriff Eric Aden and the apartment complex owner. CBS reported the claims include unconstitutional excessive and deadly force, failures in training and supervision by the Sheriff's Office, and misleading information from apartment complex staff.

After the verdict, Crump said, per Reuters: "Roger's life and his service will always matter. His family will keep fighting for him, and we will stand with them as they pursue their civil rights case in federal court and seek accountability for the tragic loss of life."

Note who is named. Civil suits often reach past the individual to employers, agencies and property owners. That matters for anyone acquitted after an incident at work or on someone else's property.

Private citizens: state tort claims such as wrongful death

If you are not a government actor, Section 1983 generally will not apply to you, but state civil law will. Someone acquitted of assault, a weapons charge or a homicide charge can still face claims like battery or wrongful death. Florida's wrongful death statute, Fla. Stat. 768.19, makes a person liable when a death "is caused by the wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty of any person" if the injured person could have sued had they lived, "although death was caused under circumstances constituting a felony." In other words, the civil claim exists whether or not a criminal court found a crime.

Florida's Stand Your Ground law: a civil shield, with conditions

Florida is one of the places where a self-defense claim can block a civil suit. Under Fla. Stat. 776.032(1), a person who uses force as permitted by the state's self-defense statutes "is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action" brought by the person against whom force was used, or that person's personal representative or heirs. The immunity does not cover force used against a law enforcement officer acting in official duties who identified themselves, or whom the person knew or reasonably should have known was an officer.

The statute also shifts costs. Under 776.032(3), "the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution." And under 776.032(4), once a defendant raises a prima facie self-defense immunity claim at a pretrial hearing, the party trying to overcome criminal immunity must prove its case by clear and convincing evidence.

Read that text closely. The civil immunity and the fee award are tied to a court finding that the defendant is immune. The statute's language does not tie them to a jury's not guilty verdict. A pretrial immunity hearing and a trial acquittal are two different things.

Duran sought that pretrial immunity. In August 2026, Circuit Judge William Stone denied his Stand Your Ground request after a three-day hearing, WUWF and Fox10 reported. On Sept. 22, 2026, the judge also refused to delay the trial pending an appeal, saying "the trial needs to stay on schedule." The jury later acquitted him.

The takeaway for anyone charged in Florida after using force: the immunity hearing is not just a way to avoid trial. It is the procedural step the statute connects to civil immunity and fee recovery.

The practical risks once a civil suit is filed

A civil case works differently from the criminal case you just went through. You can be deposed under oath, required to answer written questions and called to testify at trial.

Silence carries a different cost, too. In a criminal trial, the jury cannot hold your decision not to testify against you. In a civil case, it can. In Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976), the Supreme Court held that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them."

That is why you should not answer a demand letter, sit for a deposition or give any statement in a civil matter without first talking to a lawyer. Whether to testify or invoke the Fifth Amendment is a strategic decision that depends on your facts and on whether any criminal exposure remains.

What to do now if you were acquitted and fear a lawsuit

An unopened envelope rests on a dark wood desk beside a lifted telephone receiver, a closed legal pad, and a pen under lamp light.

  • Keep your criminal case file. Ask your defense lawyer for copies of transcripts, discovery, exhibits and any immunity-hearing record. That material can matter in a civil case.

  • Tell your criminal lawyer about any civil demand letter or lawsuit right away. Do not respond on your own.

  • Ask whether your state has a self-defense immunity or fee-shifting law like Florida's 776.032, and what procedural step triggers it.

  • Expect other parties to be named. Civil suits can target employers, agencies and property owners alongside you, so tell your employer's counsel or insurer if the incident happened on the job.

  • Do not talk publicly about the incident. Statements to the media or on social media can become evidence in a civil case.

The bottom line

An acquittal is a real and lasting protection: the same state cannot retry you for the same offense. But it is a narrow one. It does not erase the facts, it does not bind a civil jury using a lower standard, and it does not stop a lawsuit for damages. The Fortson family's federal case shows that a criminal verdict can be the end of one case and nowhere near the end of the legal fight.

Sources

Note: This article contains AI-assisted content and has been reviewed by our editorial team.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: GavelDaily.com is an advertising and information service, not a law firm. Submitting this form does not create an attorney-client relationship. The information you provide will be shared with licensed criminal defense attorneys in your area who may contact you about your inquiry. All submissions are treated as confidential by our service, but attorney-client privilege does not attach until you formally retain an attorney. Any attorney you connect with through this service is independently responsible for their legal advice and representation. Free consultations are subject to individual attorney availability. If you are facing an immediate legal emergency, contact your local public defender's office or call 911.

Frequently asked questions

Can you be sued after being found not guilty?

Yes. A not guilty verdict means only that the state did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a civil jury decides on a lower standard. In Florida that standard is the greater weight of the evidence.

Does double jeopardy protect you from a civil lawsuit?

No. The Supreme Court held in One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States that the double jeopardy clause prohibits punishing twice or attempting a second time to punish criminally. A civil suit for damages is not a criminal punishment.

Can a police officer acquitted in state court still face a federal civil rights lawsuit?

Yes. Officers acting under government authority can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Martinez v. California says state law cannot immunize conduct that is wrongful under § 1983. Officers can raise qualified immunity as a defense.

Does Florida's Stand Your Ground law block civil lawsuits?

Fla. Stat. 776.032 makes a person who used justified force immune from both criminal prosecution and civil action, and requires a fee award if the court finds the defendant immune. The statute ties that protection to a court's immunity finding, not to a jury's not guilty verdict.

Can staying silent hurt you in a civil case?

Yes. Under Baxter v. Palmigiano, a civil jury may draw adverse inferences against a party who refuses to testify in response to evidence offered against them. Talk to a lawyer before deciding whether to testify.

Share

Reporting Note

Gavel Daily is an AI-operated publication. Articles may summarize statutes, court filings, or public reporting, but readers should verify time-sensitive legal details with primary sources or a licensed attorney.