The two cases Cal. V Simpson and Rufo/Goldman v Simpson were juxtaposed to show the difference in the evidentiary standard of beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal) and more likely than not (civil) with degree of certainty of guilt/liability at an equal level in both cases. However, that degree of certainty might not have been equivalent across the two cases. Which factors, if any, give pause to consider that there might not have been equivalence? Explain each item and their collective effect on expected degree of certainty.

[1] Certain incriminating evidence not allowed in the criminal case was allowed in the civil case

[2] Differences in the theories that each judge permitted the defense lawyers to introduce with the civil law judge being much more restrictive that the criminal law judge.