The most practical split in American law is between civil and criminal cases. They use different courtrooms, rules and standards of proof, and they end in different results. You saw the roots of the split in public and private law.
| Criminal case | Civil case | |
|---|---|---|
| Who brings it | the government (a prosecutor) | a private party, a business or a government (the plaintiff) |
| Case name | State v. Smith, United States v. Smith | Jones v. Smith |
| Standard of proof | beyond a reasonable doubt | usually a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) |
| Possible result | conviction and punishment: prison, fines, probation | a remedy: money damages, an order to do or stop doing something |
| A lawyer if you cannot pay | yes, for felonies and whenever a jail or prison sentence is imposed (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, and later cases) | generally no constitutional right |
| Double jeopardy | applies: no second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal | does not apply |
Key idea
In a criminal case the government prosecutes and must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case a plaintiff sues for a remedy and usually must prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. One act can lead to both kinds of case.
Why it works
Why is the criminal standard so much higher? A conviction can take away liberty and brands a person as a wrongdoer, so the law accepts that some guilty people will go free rather than risk convicting the innocent. The Supreme Court held in In re Winship (1970) that due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of a crime. A civil case is a contest between two parties with equal stakes in getting it right, so the tie-breaker is simply which side's account is more likely true.
Worked example: Acquitted, then sued
A jury finds Sam not guilty of assaulting Rita. Rita then sues Sam for battery. Sam says double jeopardy bars the suit. Is he right?
- Double jeopardy bars a second criminal prosecution for the same offense. A civil suit is not a prosecution.
- The parties differ: the state then, Rita now.
- The standards differ: the jury found guilt not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That leaves room for a finding that battery is more likely than not.
Answer: No. The civil suit may go forward, and Rita can win under the lower standard.
Worked example: Name the case
A company dumps waste into a river. (1) The state charges the company under its environmental crimes law. (2) A farmer downstream sues for damage to her crops. Civil or criminal?
- (1) The government prosecutes for a crime: criminal. It must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the penalty is a fine.
- (2) A private party seeks money for harm: civil. Preponderance of the evidence.
Answer: (1) criminal; (2) civil.
Common mistake
Thinking a not-guilty verdict prevents a civil suit for the same act. An acquittal means only that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Double jeopardy applies only to criminal prosecutions, and the civil case has a different plaintiff and a lower standard. Check: is the second case a prosecution by the government? If not, double jeopardy does not apply.
This is an educational course, not legal advice.