Legal Question in Criminal Law in Massachusetts

Re: criminal v civil

Finding an individual "responsible" in a civil proceeding is not the same as finding that person "guilty" in a criminal setting. Civil proceedings cover tort actions (and others), but not crimes as such. ("Torts" are injuries inflicted upon other people, either (a) negligently, (b) recklessly, or (c) intentionally, and the underlying acts are not necessarily crimes, although they can be because there is some overlap, which brings us to your question.) Criminal proceedings are prosecuted by the State on behalf of "the people" (and not on behalf of the individual victim), and persons accused of crimes are automatically presumed innocent as a matter of law. As a result, the State has the burden of proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in all criminal proceedings. A simplistic, mathematical explanation of what that means is that the State has to establish guilt in excess of, say, 90 percent likelihood or more. In a civil proceeding, on the other hand, the case is prosecuted by the plaintiff (typically a private individual or a business enterprise) on his or her own behalf. There is no presumption of innocence in civil proceedings, and the plaintiff's burden in a civil tort case is "preponderance of the evidence," rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." The "preponderence of the evidence" burden means that the plaintiff only has to establish 51 percent or more likelihood that the defendant is responsible, rather than the 90 percent or more likelihood found in criminal proceedings. So, looking at exactly the same precipitating event, an individual could be found not guilty of a crime in a proceeding prosecuted by the State, yet responsible as a civil matter in a completely separate and unrelated tort proceeding prosecuted by the victim. This has been a longstanding option for victims, and is not a creation of the O.J. Simpson case.