Yeah innocent people in civil cases destroy their cell phones for no reason. The problem with civil court is it just needs probability. As I stated earlier it's going to have little to no effect on his long term reputation. He didn't hurt anyone, he didn't shoot anyone. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. As I said, serve the four games and carry on. Lord Bill could probably have a high school QB and he'd figure out an offence where he'd be effective.
From wikipedia: Legal Burden of Proof.
Preponderance of the evidence[edit]
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases, and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act. It is also the burden of proof to which the defendant must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court. In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court).
The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. The standard is satisfied if there is greater than fifty percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[8] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.[9]
This is also the standard of proof used when determining eligibility of unemployment benefits for a former employee accused of losing the job through alleged misconduct. In most US states, the employer must prove this case with a preponderance of evidence.