What is the difference between civil and criminal cases?

#Who brings the case

Only the government starts a criminal case. In federal court, the prosecutor is the US attorney, and a grand jury reviews the evidence and decides whether it is enough to require a trial. A person harmed by a crime can report it to law enforcement, but the charge belongs to the government.

A federal civil case is a legal dispute between two or more parties. It begins when a party files a complaint and pays a filing fee, or asks to have the fee waived. That party is the plaintiff, and the party being sued is the defendant. The government can be a civil plaintiff too. Federal district courts hear civil actions brought by the United States.

#How much proof each side needs

• Criminal: beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the government, and defendants do not have to prove their innocence. In re Winship (1970) held that due process requires this standard for every fact necessary to the crime charged.
• Most civil cases: preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff must convince the jury that it is more likely than not that the defendant is responsible for the harm.
• Some civil cases: clear and convincing evidence. This middle standard is less common. Addington v. Texas (1979) required it when a state seeks to commit a person to a mental hospital for an indefinite period.

#What can happen at the end

A federal criminal sentence may include time in prison, a fine paid to the government and restitution paid to crime victims. Most federal cases never reach a trial, since more than 90 percent of defendants plead guilty. A civil plaintiff may seek money to compensate for damages or an order telling the defendant to stop the harmful conduct. A court can also declare the parties’ legal rights. Federal judges encourage parties to resolve civil disputes, and litigants often agree to a settlement.

#Different rights at trial

The Sixth Amendment gives the accused in a criminal prosecution the assistance of counsel. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court applied that right to a defendant in a state felony trial who could not afford a lawyer. In civil cases, Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1981) recognized a presumption of a right to appointed counsel only when a person who loses may be deprived of physical liberty.

Juries differ too. A conviction for a serious offense requires a unanimous jury in federal and state courts, under Ramos v. Louisiana (2020). The Seventh Amendment preserves a jury in federal “Suits at common law” over $20. A federal civil verdict must be unanimous unless the parties agree otherwise.

#One set of facts, two kinds of case

Helvering v. Mitchell (1938) shows how the rules differ. Charles E. Mitchell was indicted in federal court for trying to evade income tax for 1929, and he was acquitted on all counts. Separately, on December 8, 1933, the tax commissioner notified him of a $728,709.84 deficiency and a $364,354.92 addition for fraud. Mitchell argued that the acquittal barred the addition. On March 7, 1938, the Supreme Court disagreed. It treated the addition as a civil sanction and wrote, “The difference in degree of the burden of proof in criminal and civil cases precludes application of the doctrine of res judicata.”