by Anthony Tanico
Introduction
The legal world is so vast and filled with so many different types of law. If thought is really put into it, lawyers are needed for houses, for taxes, business, family issues, and the list goes on. Being that there are so many different areas to this field, it is necessary to find out if any of these fields ever intersect. This paper will deal with two fields that weren’t previously mentioned, these being civil and criminal law. Torts are acts that are wrongfully committed, or a right that are infringed upon, that lead to civil liability. This is where personal injury would fall under. Next criminal law, which could be the most popular type of law, is laws dealing with the punishment of those who commit criminal acts. It is important to understand that torts and personal injury law look to find compensation for people who have been civilly wronged while criminal law seeks out a punishment for the people who have committed the wrong action. That is why it is necessary to learn the significance of evidence needed to restore someone financially due to something that occurred rather than punish another. The purpose of this paper will explore this idea by using criminal law and civil law to find the answer to the question: How do different burdens of proof in civil versus criminal cases shape legal outcomes? When obtaining the answer to this question we will learn how deep these two types of law differ and how both bring justice in different ways.
To answer this question, it is necessary to look at a bunch of different factors. First, we will look at the rights to an attorney when dealing with civil and criminal matters. It is important to look at the different goals and outcomes that come from these types of law, so next we will dive into the outcomes these laws hold, how people face different consequences for each type of action or crime they commit, and how the law treats each type of law. One of the largest points that will be covered will be the burden of proof and the evidence needed to achieve these legal outcomes. Unlawful death will have light shed on it when looking at what makes a wrongful death criminal or civil. Liability will then be spoken on to add to this point.
All these topics are similar, but different things that need to be discussed to get an answer are the rights to an attorney and jury rights in each type of cases, and the importance of the Fifth Amendment and the Constitution. With facts from each of these subjects, we can gain enough knowledge to gain an answer to the ultimate question.
Right to an Attorney
When dealing with a civil liability case the rights to an attorney are not as guaranteed. Civil liability cases whether dealing with personal injury, property, contracts, family issues, or something at work, requires one to go get their own attorney. There is no attorney that can freely be applied to your case whether you can afford one or not. There has been attempts to make this happen, but they have fallen short. In the article, “This Issue Will Not Go Away: Continuing to Seek the Right to Counsel in Civil Cases,” by John Nethercut, he mentions a question raised on whether a poor man had the right to an appointed attorney in a civil case under Maryland’s State Constitution. The judges concluded that this issue will not be resolved, and the Court continues to do so. Nethercut says it should be a necessity for people to have a “civil Gideon” (Nethercut 481). “Civil Gideon” stems from the case Gideon v. Wainwright where it was established that all are to receive the right to counsel in a criminal matter. This right was held up by the court because a criminal case cannot be fair when a defendant is facing trial all alone with no help.
The average defendant cannot defend themselves, so it is only right counsel is provided for them to have a fair trial. This is a clear right given to us by the Sixth Amendment. If there is a lack of counsel for those who cannot defend themselves, then there is a lack of justice, leading to different legal outcomes. Another attempt to retrieve this right for civil cases occurred in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, but the right was ultimately denied (Nethercut 481). It is necessary to understand why this was denied. Civil cases do not face the same threats to personal liberty that criminal does even if the financial burden put on a defendant after the matter is threatening to their stability.
Criminal truly does get a lot more government and right given support. Something that can look at is when one is being arrested. They will be read what is called their Miranda Rights. These rights were established in the case Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. These rights read, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney” (Miranda Warning). The court saw it necessary to issue these warnings because of the threat it has on the fifth amendment.
Without these warnings and in the setting of a police officer who is in charge, you cannot act freely. That is why these rights to an attorney are freely give and all one must do is ask for one. People with civil issues must go well out of their way compared to this. Clearly since civil cases do not include State and law enforcement questioning, they do not need to be used in the civil context. This could significantly shape legal outcomes because if one cannot afford a civil attorney, then the justice system becomes one sided and unjust. There is an extreme disadvantage when it comes to these cases when people cannot get representation. Even the lowest level of public defender is better than no representation at all. This issue is something that really needs to be investigated further so we can have more fair and just legal outcomes.
Civil and Criminal Outcomes
With already having mentioned legal outcomes, it is important to look at past outcomes pertaining to both civil and criminal cases. A case to mention is Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356 (2010), which deals with removing proceedings pertaining to criminal deportations when Padilla (Petitioner) is being charged with a civil deportation. The court decided that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an attorney was not available and the proceeding was removed in this instance because deportation was just a consequence of the conviction. In a criminal matter all proceedings must be heard so the court labeled the deportation as a civil action, making it possible to drop the proceeding (pg.1488). This may confuse people in a way because deportation is breaking a federal law which would be a criminal action, but the point here is to show how this case has used the difference between the civil and criminal systems to change outcomes. The less “government affiliated” laws of civil cases were used to let a man be deported without seeing a trial. The outcome of the case was shifted significantly due to no trial being heard. What this can do in the future is change legal outcomes for the worse because people’s rights are being tried against. Whether you are guilty of illegally entering the country or committing any other crime, it is a criminal action that should be brought to the courts.
Burden of Proof
One may think that the burden of proof is not something that is significantly different between criminal and civil cases, since evidence is what determines cases, but there is a difference among the two. It is necessary to look at an example of the burden of proof from both types of law. When pertaining to civil law, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, inc., 477 US 242 (1986), gives a good example of demonstrating how much evidence is needed to show proof of which side is correct. “This case presented the question whether the clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement must be considered by a court ruling on a motion for summary judgement under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a case to which New York Times applies” (pg. 244). Initially, what came from this question was that the clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement was not needed amidst the stage of summary judgement. This is because the standards for civil matters are so much lower than criminal. It is about the preponderance and collection of evidence that is convincing enough, not to charge against rights but to charge against financially. Civil does not play with freedoms and liberties but a literal cost for compensation.
Now to look at a case from the criminal perspective, a good example offered to us is Davis v. United States, 160 US 469 (1895). What is found in this case numerous times is the phrase, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is repeated so many times because this is what criminal cases need their evidence to prove. It is needed to be said because the court is playing with people’s rights in a criminal court. Without the burden of proof, one can be convicted wrongly and lose their rights for no reason. Because of this significance, it is up to the prosecutors to have their evidence prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that their side is correct. The prosecutors are the ones that carry the burden of proof in criminal cases. This is because the defendant is technically innocent until the jury decides them to be guilty. An example of a prosecutor within this case saying this is, “Gentlemen, I have given you the law in the case, and you are to take it as the law and by this law and the testimony you are to make up your verdict. You are to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of this defendant before you convict” (pg. 478). Because the outcomes of bringing someone to court is so significant and plays a big part on deciding a person’s future, both types of law need their evidence to be very clear. The burden of proof differs in the types of law because the consequences of criminal are much more significant. They decide if one is to be stripped from their daily lives. One’s free life is not on the line in a civil case, but they are financially impacted.
Unlawful Death
When examining cases that pertain to unlawful death, we learn how criminal cases act on the loss of lives as a crime opposed to the state. Meaning, a person’s death was caused by another’s negligence, carelessness, or even intent. Death in an unlawful nature leads to burdens and consequences in the highest regard. In the case of People v. Concha, 218 P. 3d 660 (Cal. 2009), it was in the hands of the California Supreme Court to decide whether the defendants of this case, who were involved in a group assault, could be charged with implied malice of second-degree murder. The Court brought up that liability in the means of wrongful death does not apply only to the state of the victim but to the mental state of the defendant as well. In this case, this found the defendant guilty of intentional murder when analyzing their mental state (pg. 659). The judges further talked about how the carelessness of another’s life is intent and implied malice but bears the burden of proof of proving without a reasonable doubt. The defendant must have had the showing of disregard for the risk of the victim for them to be convicted. In the case Concha speaks on intent and mens rea being satisfied by the defendant personally acting with malice aforethought (pg. 660). The case teaches there must proof without a reasonable doubt when it comes to mens rea as well.
When connecting unlawful death to the topic of this paper there are key different that need to be highlighted between civil and criminal unlawful death. When looking at criminal first, the state must fully show proof that the mental state of the person considered the action to be life threatening but showed negligence and intent as well. The goal here is to hold the defendant accountable criminally and not gain any financial compensation (Finch McCranie, LLP). As mentioned above, criminal calls for the burden of proof. This differs largely to civil unlawful death. Civil is not filed by State, but by private parties representing the people who initiated the lawsuit. The standard of proof is much lower as well. “In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove the defendant’s liability by a preponderance of the evidence. Meaning it’s more likely than not that the defendant’s actions caused the death” (Finch McCranie, LLP). Civil courts differ on this account as well where they offer income for damages and things such as medical bills, funeral expenses, and more. Civil does focus more on compensation while criminal is more about the mental and physical evidence on who to blame. Although it seems wrong, it is more about upholding the values of statutes and the constitution over the severity of the deaths that come from these cases. That is why unlawful death is a necessary topic for this paper, to show how the different burdens of proof shape legal outcomes. No matter whether it is criminal or civil, there are differences.
Facing Liability
Whether it is in a criminal context or civil, someone is going to be liable for actions committed against someone else. The case of Portee v. Jaffee, 417 A. 2d 521 (N.J. 1980), handles unlawful death, in the potential and not the initial occurrence. It really comes down to whether the defendant should face liability in a criminal or civil context. In this case it was asked whether a parent can recover damages for the emotional turmoil of watching their child in an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant (pg. 90). What is different from this case is that the Court did not fully look for negligence in the way of blaming and convicting the defendant but looked for the negligence to determine if it led to the emotion’s damages of the parent (pg. 90). “The cause of action we approve today for the negligent infliction of emotional distress requires proof of the following: the death or serious physical injury of another caused by defendant’s negligence; a marital or intimate familial relationship between plaintiff and the injured person; observation of the death or injury at the scene of the accident; and resulting severe emotional distress” (pg. 101). It was found the defendant satisfied all four of these elements. Below this the justices also state, “We find that a defendant’s duty of reasonable care to avoid physical harm to others extends to the avoidance of this type of mental and emotional harm” (pg. 101). Simply, this means the avoidance of harm towards others on the defendant’s part ruled out the search for mental evidence to blame the defendant for a criminal charge.
The case of Portee shows how the bar is lowered in civil liability cases rather than criminal. The damages against the parent in Portee can still be compensated for through a civil stance even though the defendant did not meet the bar for a criminal punishment. The only thing the court asked for was negligence on the defendant’s behalf, not implied malice or the intent to harm someone else. That is the difference of what makes the case criminal or not. A similarity that can be found in the differences between criminal and civil procedure here is that criminal charges are protected against where people being charged do not have their liberties tried against at all. In the sense of civil procedure, people are compensated against, so rights are not tried against either. This is how liability can still be found in civil cases without the criminal charge. Once again, we can find how the different burdens of proof, whether in criminal or civil cases, result in different legal outcomes.
Conclusion
When comparing criminal and civil law side by side we can understand that the different burdens of proof allow for different legal outcomes. If not for the right to an attorney in criminal matters, there would be no true justice system for those who cannot defend themselves. We can understand the difference in the civil sector with the right to an attorney because in a civil case one does not have their rights truly tried against. No matter what though a criminal action or unlawful civil action will be brought to the courts resulting in a legal outcome. What truly separates these fields of law is the burden of proof. In short, criminal must offer proof with a reasonable doubt to criminally charge someone and civil offers a preponderance of evidence that would lead to compensation that does not charge against any physical rights. That is truly the difference that settles criminal outcomes. Whether this is for a death in the unlawful action or just finding someone to find liable. these are the guidelines that must be followed to obtain true and just legal outcomes.