Can someone please explain how someone can be innocent in a criminal case but be guilty in a civil case?

Question

It makes no sense...Only a lawyer could come up with such a scam !

Answer 1

There are two answers to your question. One is simple: two different trials about the same thing, with different juries, probably different lawyers, and slightly different witnesses, evidence, and facts presented, might arrive at different conclusions.

The other is more complicated and gets at the nature of the judicial system in this country. Criminal cases are very different than civil ones. A criminal court determines innocence or guilt. One party is always the government, who is prosecuting the accused for a crime, so in some ways, the trial balances the interests of the entire society we live in against the interests of a single person. Because we all know that we could be that single person, rightly or wrongly accused, and because having the weight of the entire system against you is a heavy burden to struggle against to prove your side is the right one, we give all kinds of rights to criminal defendants to even the playing field. Innocent until proven guilty is the biggest one- all the presumptions that a court can draw must be drawn in the defendant's favor, unless the government meets a very high standard of proof for all the elements of any given crime. The best known, and highest, standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt in a judge or jury's mind about the guilt of the defendant, then the prosecution has failed to meet the burden and the accused must be ruled innocent.

Civil trials are an entirely different system. In a civil court, there are two parties, and usually the goverment is not one of them. One party, the plaintiff, brings a suit against another and tries to prove that they have a cause of action against that defendant. If the defendant is found liable to the plaintiff, in many cases they must pay damages or return property or make some similar type of restitution. This is not the same as being convicted in a criminal trial- there is no possibility of jail time, there is no 'guilty' verdict, no felony record. A civil court works out a dispute between parties, and it makes a judgment about who owes the other money, or who owns something, or whether the plaintiff can stop the defendant from doing something that is hurting them; things like that.

The confusion you speak of arises when civil courts deal with matters that are like criminal charges. Wrongful death, for instance, is a civil cause of action that may seem a bit like the criminal charges of murder or manslaughter. You can be acquitted of murder by a criminal court but still be liable in civil court to someone's family for wrongfully causing the death of that person. An example might be a products liability case- cigarette companies may not have murdered the smokers who died of lung cancer, but juries have found them liable to the families of dead smokers for millions of dollars in civil penalties. Crimes of homicide require greater proof of intent, generally, and the burdens in civil cases are lower, more equal between the sides in the case, and without all of a defendants' criminal safeguards.

I can see why you think it 'makes no sense,' but really, it isn't a scam. The two courts are asking different questions, so it is not too surprising that sometimes they come up with different answers.

Answer 2

If the prosecution does not have enough evidence for a conviction in a criminal case they may be able to get some justice in a civil case. This is because the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases but the standard for a civil case is only "by the preponderance of the evidence." Sometimes, unfortunately, there just isn't enough evidence to prosecute criminally. However, if a case is tried civilly first and the perpetrator is found at fault, the prosecutor can then use that fact to help prosecute in criminal court.

Answer 3

There are two standards. In a criminal case, you want to be very sure that you are not putting an innocent man in prison, so the government must find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not mean there must be no doubt at all, just that a reasonable person, when taking care of very important matters, would need to feel that amount of certainty that what he is doing is correct. When you're dealing with a civil case, you just have to prove that it is more likely than not that the person is liable. This is so the parties to the lawsuit have equal standards of proof. The difference is that the government is held to higher standards of proof than an individual.

Answer 4

There is a higher burden of proof in a criminal case. We place a higher value on freedom so it requires a higher standard of proof.

In a civil case it is only greater than 50%(aka preponderance of the evidence). In a criminal case you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

BTW- It is not true that a guilty verdict must be unanimous. Some states do require it but not all.

Answer 5

Burden of proof. Let's say for example a person is accused of murder. The burden of proof for a guilty verdict is 12-0, beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof for a guilty verdict in a civil case is a simple majority, 7-5 for example. It's easier to get a 7-5 vote than it is a 12-0 vote.

Answer 6

criminal case a guilty verdict is based upon not having a reasonable doubt while civil case is based upon a preponderence of evidence...ie. OJ Simpson

Answer 7

Its easier to win a suite ,than to get a guilty verdict. do not need as much evidence in a Civil suite as a Criminal one, Criminals are protected by the law.

Answer 8

Criminal Record Search Database : http://SearchVerifyInfos.com/Info

Answer 9

Did not do the crime but could of done more to avoid it.