Criminal Defense Lawyers

Liable in Civil Court but Not Guilty in Criminal Court: How Does This Happen?

Liable in Civil Court but Not Guilty in Criminal Court: How Does This Happen?

Have you ever heard of someone being found liable in a civil case but not guilty in a related criminal case and wondered how that could be? This scenario is actually not uncommon in the American legal system, which consists of two separate court systems – civil and criminal – with different standards and burdens of proof.In this article, we’ll break down the key differences between civil and criminal law, look at some real-life examples, and explain how it’s possible for the same person to be found not guilty of a crime but still be held liable for damages in a civil case.

The Difference Between Civil and Criminal Law

Civil law deals with private disputes between individuals or organizations. For example, a car accident victim might sue the negligent driver for damages. Or a homeowner might sue a contractor for doing shoddy work.Criminal law deals with offenses against the state or “the people.” Crimes like murder, robbery, and assault are prosecuted by state or federal prosecutors in criminal court.Here are some of the main differences:

• Parties: In civil law, the dispute is between two private parties, like Person A vs. Person B. In criminal law, the case is between the state and the defendant, like The People vs. John Doe.
• Purpose: Civil law aims to compensate victims for losses. Criminal law aims to punish offenders and protect public safety.
• Burden of proof: In civil cases, the plaintiff’s burden is to prove their case by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it’s more likely than not that the defendant is liable. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a much higher standard.
• Punishment: In civil cases, the losing party typically has to pay monetary damages. Criminal cases carry punishments like probation, fines, jail time, or prison.
• Initiating a case: Civil cases are initiated by private parties; criminal cases are brought by prosecutors.
• Double jeopardy: Defendants can face both civil and criminal trials for the same incident because double jeopardy protections only apply to criminal prosecutions.

So in summary – civil cases have a lower burden of proof, involve private parties, and seek monetary damages. Criminal cases have a higher burden of proof, involve the government, and impose criminal punishments.

Real-Life Examples

One of the most famous examples of differing civil and criminal verdicts is the O.J. Simpson trial. Simpson was criminally acquitted of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman in 1995. However, their families later filed a civil wrongful death lawsuit against Simpson.In 1997, Simpson was found liable in civil court for the deaths and ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages. The burden of proof is lower in civil cases, so the plaintiffs could show it was more likely than not that Simpson was responsible even though the criminal prosecution didn’t fully prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Other examples:

• Robert Blake, acquitted of murdering his wife in a criminal trial, was later found liable in civil court and ordered to pay $30 million.
• The Menendez brothers were not convicted of murdering their wealthy parents in criminal court but were later found liable in civil court.
• O.J. Simpson’s former friend Al Cowlings was found not guilty of aiding a fugitive for helping Simpson flee in the famous white Bronco chase. But in civil court, a jury found him liable and ordered him to pay damages.

So how can this disjointed result happen? How can someone be guilty in the eyes of civil law but not criminal law? There are a few key reasons.

How This Disconnect Happens

1. Different standards of proof – Beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence. Even if a criminal jury has some doubts about guilt, a civil jury can find it’s more likely than not that the defendant is liable.2. Different rules of evidence – Certain evidence that might be inadmissible or excluded in a criminal trial might be allowed in a civil case, leading to different verdicts.3. Strategic differences – Civil cases allow more expansive discovery and deposition processes. Criminal cases require prosecutors to disclose more evidence to the defense. The strategies and resources available to each side differ.4. 5th Amendment protections – Criminal defendants can exercise their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination without consequences. But in civil cases, refusing to testify or answer questions can be damaging.5. Burden of proof on defendant – In civil cases, the burden shifts to the defendant once the plaintiff makes their prima facie case. This doesn’t happen in criminal cases.6. Differing jury instructions – Criminal juries receive instructions on the presumption of innocence and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Civil juries use a preponderance of the evidence standard.7. Public policy – Criminal cases demand stronger proof because someone’s freedom and reputation are at stake. The public policy interests differ between the two systems.8. Statutes of limitations – Sometimes civil cases are brought years later when evidence that could have impacted a criminal trial is no longer available.9. Defendant’s finances – Juries might be influenced by a defendant’s ability to pay large civil damages, which isn’t relevant in a criminal case.10. Standards of appellate review – It’s easier to overturn civil verdicts than criminal convictions on appeal.So in summary, the differing burdens of proof, procedural rules, trial strategies, and public policy interests between the two court systems can lead to inconsistent outcomes in civil and criminal cases – even when they involve the same underlying incident.

The Pros and Cons of Inconsistent Verdicts

There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue.On one hand, some argue that a not guilty verdict should protect defendants from civil liability. They view civil lawsuits after a criminal acquittal as an injustice or an end-run around double jeopardy protections.Others counter that civil suits serve a different purpose – compensating victims – that warrants a lower standard of proof. They argue civil verdicts hold offenders accountable in a different way and allow victims recourse when the criminal justice system fails them.Pros of allowing inconsistent verdicts:

• Lets victims pursue compensation for harm suffered
• Provides recourse when criminal prosecutions fail
• Imposes some accountability through monetary damages
• Allows civil juries to weigh different evidence than criminal juries

Cons:

• Can undermine public confidence/faith in the justice system
• Puts defendants through multiple cases over one incident
• Seems unjust if criminal standard not met but civil standard is met
• Opens door to cases being brought strategically for settlement money

There are good arguments on both sides. Some view it as an unfair injustice, while others see it as our system balancing different interests through separate civil and criminal courts.

The Bottom Line

So in summary, while it may seem counterintuitive on the surface, it is possible under our legal system for someone to be found not guilty of a crime in criminal court but still be held liable for the same actions in civil court.The different parties involved, lower burden of proof, procedural differences, and public policy interests between civil and criminal law can lead to this scenario. There are pros and cons to allowing such disjointed outcomes, and reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line.But the dual court system was designed to balance competing interests and offer alternative paths to justice through monetary damages or criminal punishment depending on the circumstances. So someone being acquitted criminally but found civilly liable, while controversial at times, is a byproduct of this system and its differing standards and rules across civil and criminal law.