�鶹����

Criminal and civil cases sit side by side in the legal system, yet they operate under vastly different rules. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” — the highest in the court system. In civil trials, jurors are instructed to determine what seems most likely. This key difference is only one of the many ways the two types of trials diverge.

In three minutes, Professor from Practice Bill Bailey explains several of the fundamental differences between criminal and civil trials, including the need for unanimous or near-unanimous verdicts, constitutional rights afforded in each one and the potential outcomes for guilty parties.

Read the transcript

Bill Bailey (BB): I am Bill Bailey and I am a professor from practice at University of Washington.

�鶹���� Law: Who initiates criminal and civil cases?

BB: Criminal cases are brought by either state prosecutors or federal prosecutors. Civil cases are brought by private parties against one another.

�鶹���� Law: How are the standards of proof different for both types of cases?

BB: Criminal cases have our highest standard of proof: “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The civil standard of proof is fuzzy — it's “preponderance of the evidence.” What does that mean? More likely than not, but it's never defined in terms of percentage terms. Essentially, it's saying to the jurors, go with your gut. What seems like the best outcome here?

�鶹���� Law: Are unanimous verdicts required in both?

BB: It's all over the map. Twenty-seven states allow partial verdicts — nonunanimous. In the state of Washington in a 12-person jury in a civil case, all you need is 10 jurors voting for a particular result. Criminal cases must be unanimous, and that goes along with the beyond a reasonable doubt.

�鶹���� Law: How do constitutional rights such as court-appointed attorneys and the right to remain silent differ between the two types of trials?

BB: Criminal trials are where we see the right to remain silent and the right to counsel — both very important. If an individual cannot afford a lawyer on their own, the government has to appoint one for them. But in civil cases, there's no appointment process. You have to hire a lawyer, or else you represent yourself, which more and more people are doing because they can't afford a lawyer.

�鶹���� Law: What types of outcomes, such as jail time or fines, can result from each type of trial?

BB: Unless someone violates court orders, there's not any chance of jail time in civil actions, which is why we have the lesser standard of proof. It's criminal cases that result in potentially severe consequences to the defendant.

There's a difference between federal and state court in sentencing. Federal judges have a lot of power, a lot of discretion to determine the correct sentence. In state courts, there's been more of a movement to sentencing guidelines, which restrict the power of the judge. There's a so-called standard range, and the judge can go outside the stand standard range, either for a higher sentence or a lower one, but they have to provide reasons to support their decision. Federal judges don't have to do this.

�鶹���� Law: Are there any additional key differences you would like to mention?

BB: The criminal system is overwhelmed. In state courts, prosecutors and defenders alike have to deal with a high volume. In civil cases, there's much more opportunity to explore the issues, to litigate the case, less pressure to just get something done before you get overwhelmed with the next one.