| INTRODUCTION
ALTHOUGH NO ONE EXCEPT A CRIMINAL expects to be charged
with a crime, and few of us ever contemplate the possibility of a lawsuit,
it seems that the more we know about how our legal system works, the more
likely we are to respect the rights of others while demanding that our
own rights are respected. Hence this section on how the legal system works.
Subsequent sections will explain your legal rights in a nation dedicated
to the rule of law;
this section will give you an overview of how our legal system can give
those rights meaning.
- ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- DISCOVERY
- JURIES
- POST-TRIAL PROCEDURES
- PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES
- SETTLING YOUR DISPUTE
- SMALL CLAIMS COURT
- STATE OR FEDERAL COURT
- TRIALS
- VERDICTS
- WHERE TO GET MORE INFORMATION
Q. Why do we have an "adversarial" legal system?
A. American courtroom procedures are based on historical precedent,
modified by the needs and experience of lawyers and judges. When two parties
cannot agree on their respective rights and obligations, or even on what
gave rise to the dispute, the system provides each side with an equal
opportunity to present its case (and to point out the weaknesses in its
opponent's case) to a neutral judge or jury. Each side is championed by
a lawyer following the same statutes, case law, and rules of procedure.
The system is designed to permit the truth to emerge whether the case
is criminal or civil in nature.
Q. How does a civil suit differ from a criminal prosecution?
A. A criminal prosecution is brought by the government to punish
an individual for committing a
crime against society and to deter others from committing similar crimes.
As appropriate, it may
create an opportunity for state-supervised rehabilitation or separation
of the offender from the
aggrieved community. Although a criminal defendant may have directly injured
only one victim, it is thought that any violation of the criminal laws
harms society as well. Accordingly, the victim is not permitted to prosecute
the criminal case against the defendant who harmed him or her--that is
the government's job in its role as the society's representative. The
crime victim, of course, can be the principal witness against the criminal
defendant, but it is the government alone that has the authority to file
an "information" or seek a grand jury "indictment"
charging someone with a crime.
On the other hand, a crime victim may file a civil lawsuit against a wrongdoer.
If the victim
sues, he or she is called the plaintiff; the perpetrator of the crime
is called the defendant, just as in the criminal case. The civil case
provides a legal forum for persons seeking compensation for their injuries
or vindication of their rights. Courts may provide redress to plaintiffs
who can
demonstrate that a defendant has injured them while committing some legal
wrong against them.
Unlike a criminal case, the defendant in a civil case who is found liable
for harming the plaintiff
cannot be sentenced to prison but, instead, will be compelled to pay compensation
or ordered to take or desist from some action.
Q. Are there different standards for determining liability in
a civil suit and guilt in a
criminal case?
A. Yes. Because the Bill of Rights treats a criminal conviction
(and the possibility of a death
sentence or a prison term) as a more serious consequence than a finding
of civil liability, it is more difficult to convict someone of a crime
than it is to obtain a civil judgment against him or her.
In most instances, the test for whether a trial court properly found that
a plaintiff met his or
her "burden of proof" in a civil suit is measured by whether
a reasonable person could have
concluded that it was "more likely than not" that the defendant
was liable for, i.e., legally
responsible for, the plaintiff's injury or loss. This "preponderance
of the evidence" standard means that if the evidence favors the plaintiff
by even the slightest bit, he or she is entitled to a verdict. In a criminal
case, however, the standard is much higher: the prosecution must demonstrate
the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." Thus, even
if it is more likely than not that a criminal defendant is guilty of the
crime charged, the proper verdict is "not guilty" if there remains
a reasonable doubt about his or her guilt.
As will be discussed in more detail beginning in the section on criminal
justice,
the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants many other
rights, including
the right to a jury trial when there is the possibility of a conviction
resulting in a prison term of six months or more, and the right to have
an attorney appointed if the defendant cannot afford to hire one.
|
