Can a Civil Case Precede or Follow a Criminal Case?

Legal proceedings involving both civil and criminal cases can be complex and intertwine in significant ways. A well-known example is the O.J. Simpson case, where the criminal case failed due to the higher burden of proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' while the civil case succeeded due to the lower burden of proof 'more likely true than not.' Understanding how and when these cases can proceed in relation to each other is crucial for legal professionals and parties involved.

The O.J. Simpson Case: A Notable Example

The O.J. Simpson case is a prime example of the intertwining of civil and criminal cases. In the criminal trial, the prosecution had to meet the high bar of proving guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' leading to Simpson's acquittal. In contrast, the civil case against him was decided under a lower burden of proof and resulted in a judgment against him for wrongful death. This illustrates the different standards and outcomes that can exist between the two types of cases.

Order of Filing Civil and Criminal Cases

Deciding whether to proceed with a civil case before or after a criminal case can be a challenging decision. The order in which these cases are filed is not determinative of the ultimate outcome. The results of one case do not necessarily impact the other. In the United States, for instance, one can file a civil case before or after a criminal case. The order does not affect the legal outcomes of either case.

Strategic Considerations for Filing Orders

Strategically, there are advantages to both filing orders. Waiting until after a criminal case is resolved might simplify a civil case if the defendant is convicted. In such a scenario, the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) might apply, meaning that certain issues decided in the criminal case are binding in the civil case. However, if the defendant is acquitted, the criminal acquittal will have no impact on the civil case due to the different standards of proof.

Conversely, proceeding with a civil case before a criminal one can provide additional information that may be beneficial in the criminal case. This is because the lower burden of proof in civil cases can result in more evidence being presented and potentially admissible in the criminal case. However, doing so might also pose risks, such as self-incrimination.

Legal Risks and Benefits

One critical consideration is the risk of self-incrimination. In a criminal trial, the standard of proof required to establish guilt is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' In contrast, in a civil trial, the standard is lower: 'more likely true than not.' This means that in a civil case, statements made by defendants might not be incriminating. Once the criminal case is over, statements made in the civil case may lose their potential to incriminate in the criminal context.

For example, O.J. Simpson was civilly sued after his acquittal in the criminal case. To avoid contempt, he was forced to testify in the civil trial. This testimony was relevant in the civil case but did not incriminate him in the criminal case because the criminal proceedings had concluded.

Conclusion

Whether a civil case precedes or follows a criminal case depends on the specific circumstances and strategic considerations. The order of filing these cases does not dictate their outcomes, but it can influence the results in important ways. Legal professionals and parties involved must carefully weigh the benefits and risks of each approach to ensure the best possible outcome for their case.