Wrongful Conduct: Civil Case vs. Criminal Case

A single set of actions can violate both civil and criminal laws, meaning the wrongdoer or accused can face two court actions for the same allegations. Wrongful acts—such as assault, manslaughter, reckless driving, and even defamation—can be both civil and criminal actions. How so?

Understanding Civil Cases vs. Criminal Cases

Civil and criminal cases differ in several aspects—who files the case, what remedies are available, and what legal standard of proof applies. But at their core, these cases ultimately differ in their purposes.

Lawmakers (representing society as a whole) decide what conduct to prohibit and how it can be remedied or punished. Lawmakers consider some wrongful acts so harmful that the offender can be penalized by loss of liberty (incarceration). Other acts might be remedied by permitting the aggrieved party to seek redress in civil court. Still other acts can result in both types of liability.

Civil Lawsuits for Harm to an Individual

The law permits victims of certain wrongful acts to go to court to seek damages or other relief from the wrongdoer. Civil liability is limited to monetary damages and non-monetary relief (like a cease-and-desist order), but not incarceration.

Take a breach of contract situation, for example. The aggrieved party can file a lawsuit against the breaching party to recover damages or require the breaching party to make good on the contract. However, society does not consider a breach of contract to be so egregious that it warrants jail time.

Criminal Prosecution for Societal Harm

Crimes represent conduct society at large has deemed harmful to the public and deserving of punishment as retribution or to deter others from doing the same. A government prosecutor files charges against the defendant, and a conviction can result in incarceration and fines. The prosecution isn't seeking money or compensation; its job is to seek justice.

When Wrongful Conduct Can Mean Civil Liability and Criminal Charges

That leads us to wrongful conduct that can result in both criminal and civil liability. Many intentional torts fall into both camps. Examples of intentional torts are assault, battery, and false imprisonment. A person who intentionally harms another can be found liable in both criminal and civil court, as both the victim and the government have an interest in seeking justice for the harm caused.

Civil Lawsuit and a Criminal Conviction

Whether a crime victim or their family will sue the offender depends on the situation. Criminal cases can take a long time, and the victim may want to file in civil court to expedite the recovery of damages.

At other times, a criminal conviction is sufficient. Often, a sentencing judge will order a convicted criminal defendant to pay restitution to a crime victim. Restitution orders direct a defendant to compensate the victim for their losses, such as paying their medical bills or repairing damaged property. The restitution order is similar to a civil judgment (and getting paid depends on whether the defendant has any means to pay it).

Even when there is a conviction, it still might make sense for a victim to take a criminal defendant to civil court. In civil court, the victim might argue for additional damages that a sentencing judge can't award in a restitution order (like future lost earnings or mental pain and suffering).

Criminal Defendant Isn't Convicted

Sometimes the criminal defendant isn't convicted, and a civil lawsuit is the only option the victim has for compensation and justice. Take the O.J. Simpson case. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in criminal court. Yet a civil court jury held him legally responsible for their deaths.

Why an Acquittal in Criminal Court Doesn't Rule Out Civil Liability

You are not alone in being confused about how a person acquitted of murder in a criminal trial can be held liable for a victim's wrongful death in a civil trial.

Civil and Criminal Cases Have Different Standards of Proof

Because the repercussions of a criminal conviction are harsher than a civil judgment, the law imposes a higher burden in criminal cases.

Criminal case. The first step to understanding this seeming contradiction is to know that a criminal prosecution involves different laws, a different court system, and a different standard of proof. Going back to the O.J. case: The definition of first-degree murder requires that the act be done with malice aforethought and premeditation. To convict in the criminal court, a prosecutor must prove the case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt (a standard of near certainty).

Civil case. In a civil case for wrongful death, on the other hand, the plaintiffs had to prove only that the defendant's intentional and unlawful conduct resulted in the victims ' deaths. The burden of proof in the civil case was the preponderance of the evidence (a standard of "more likely than not")—a much lower burden than is required in a criminal case.

How These Differences Affect Real Court Outcomes

While a criminal jury might fail to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquit an accused, a civil jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant's unlawful conduct results in civil liability. The civil jury is looking at the case from a viewpoint of whose side is more persuasive (the side that proves their case by 51% wins). A criminal jury must decide if the prosecution proved its case with near certainty (99% sure).

Note that, on the flip side, a conviction means an easy win for the victim in civil court, because the defendant's guilt has already been determined by a tougher standard. (For this reason, some defendants plead no contest to charges when this option is available. Pleading no contest means the defendant accepts their conviction but doesn't admit guilt.)

Famous Civil and Criminal Verdicts: O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake Cases

Is the former football hero O.J. Simpson a murderer? A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his ex-wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first-degree murder. Legally, the outcomes do not contradict each other.

A similar result occurred in a murder case involving actor Robert Blake, who was accused of killing his wife. Blake started as a child actor in the 1930s and, later as an adult, played roles on TV and in movies as a cop and murderer. The real-life killing of his second wife in 2001 led to his arrest and trial for her murder. Later acquitted, the wife's family sued him in a wrongful death action and won a $30 million judgment.

Speak to an Attorney

Talk to an attorney if you have questions about filing a civil action against someone for harming you or a loved one. While victims have a role in criminal cases, the prosecutor makes the major decisions. In a civil case, the plaintiff takes the lead. You might have a solid civil case and a better chance at a damage award. An attorney can help evaluate your case and whether it's worth filing in civil court.