Judicial Activism Case

Criminal vs. Civil Cases

Abstract

In America, our legal system consists of the criminal and civil law cases. The criminal cases are when our criminal justice system alleges that a crime has been committed against the State, which has a special interest and prosecutes the defendant. Civil cases originate in circumstances where a legal duty or responsibility to another has been breached and the plaintiff commences a lawsuit for damages against the defendant. Significant differences are existent in the criminal and civil systems of justice, particularly in Constitutional protections and standards of proof. In the Criminal justice system the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in the civil justice system the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence". There are cases in American Jurisprudence where a defendant can have liability in a criminal and civil trial, which results in the courts applying different analogies of proof to the evidence presented under the rules of civil and criminal procedures.

Criminal and Civil Cases

In America, our legal system consists of the criminal and civil law cases. The criminal cases are when our criminal justice system alleges that a crime has been committed against the State, which has a special interest and prosecutes the defendant. Civil cases originate in circumstances where a legal duty or responsibility to another has been breached and the plaintiff commences a lawsuit for damages against the defendant. In a civil case the plaintiff must have a special interest in the result (Schubert, 2015).

In criminal cases, protections for defendants under criminal law are substantial as in the right of protection against self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment, protection against illegal searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and the right to counsel in the Sixth Amendment, which are not available to a defendant in civil cases (www.criminal.findlaw.com).

The pre-trial process with criminal and civil trials are adversely the same in terms of the discovery, and the filing of motions for admitting evidence presented prior to the trial in order to not create confusion for the jury (Schubert, 2015). A resolution may be reached in civil and

criminal law circumstances prior to trial except in serious felony cases, and "not guilty" pleas. Mediators can help parties reach an agreement in civil cases to avoid the costs of going to trial. When an agreement cannot be reached in mediation, the case would then go to trial where both sides present their cases to be decided by the jury. In a criminal case if the defendant cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint the defendant counsel guaranteed under the 6th Amendment of the Constitution (www.criminal.findlaw.com).

In civil trials, the court is not required to appoint an attorney for either party in the litigation case. The punishments in civil cases include compensation, specific performance, punitive, and other forms of remedies for the damages caused. If a defendant is found guilty in a criminal case, the punishments range from fines, probation, prison, or death. In criminal cases, protections for defendants under criminal law are substantial as in the right to self-incrimination in the Fifth Amendment, protection against illegal searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and the right to counsel in the sixth Amendment. Many of these protections are not available to a defendant in civil cases (www.criminal.findlaw.com).

Standards of proof in guilt or innocence are extremely dissimilar in civil cases compared with criminal cases. In criminal law, the crimes on trial must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in civil cases, the liability has less standards of proof called "the preponderance of the evidence", more likely than not that the defendant is libel for the neglect of duty. Defendants found to be libel in civil cases are less responsible and punishments are less severe are the reason for the dissimilarities in standards of proof (www.criminal.findlaw.com).

Standards of Proof Analysis in the O.J. Simpson Criminal and Civil Trials

Consequently, a defendant's behaviors can have both criminal and civil liability. A famous case example in American Jurisprudence is the O.J. Simpson murder and civil trials. How could Mr. Simpson be found not guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal case and guilty with "the preponderance of the evidence in the civil trial"? The evidence presented was viewed in different weights in the juries on these two famous cases. In the criminal trial, Simpson had a dream team of very experienced DNA and trial attorneys, with the most famous being Johnny Cochran. Cochran convinced the jury that the evidence presented was tampered,

planted, and racial bias by the LAPD. As all this unfolded into the trial, the bloody trail evidence began to fade as Cochran actively alleged racial bias by the LAPD (www.crimelibrary.com). Through the trial tactics, he filed a motion and was able to get the trial moved to a different location for media purposes. But the most famous of all was the line "if it does not fit, you must acquit" which referred to the bloody glove that Simpson tried on right in front of the jury, which did not fit. With the presentation of the evidence, Cochran convinced the jury "beyond aa reasonable doubt" that Simpson was framed for the double murders of his ex-wife and her companion, which resulted in a verdict of "not guilty" (www.crimelibrary.com).

In the civil trial, the jury weighed the evidence in a different perspective that wasn't as heavy as 'beyond a reasonable doubt". Simpson never testified in the criminal trial in order to protect himself under the 5th Amendment to self-incrimination. In a civil case the standards are different and the prosecuting attorney called Simpson to the stand to testify. There he portrayed the domestic abuse and anger during his marriage to the victim. All the evidence in the criminal trial was again used in the civil trial including the