When a jury reaches a decision in a criminal trial, that decision is handed down as a verdict. There are three options: guilty, not guilty, and acquittal. Things are different in civil court. At the conclusion of a civil trial, a court renders a judgment. This is not just a matter of semantics. There are clear differences between verdicts and judgments.
Establishing Guilt or the Lack Thereof
The whole point of a criminal trial is to establish the defendant’s guilt. A prosecutor goes into a court case intending to do just that. If he succeeds, he will get a guilty verdict and an associated conviction. If he fails, he doesn’t get what he wants.
Here is a brief explanation of the three verdict options:
- Guilty – The evidence is enough to satisfy the jury that the defendant is guilty as charged.
- Not Guilty – The evidence proving the defendant’s guilt is insufficient. The defendant is therefore not guilty, or innocent if you will.
- Acquittal – The defendant cannot be held accountable for the crime even though he may have committed it.
In all three cases, the common thread is the question of whether a crime has been committed. Criminal statutes are very specific in terms of what can and cannot be prosecuted. Things are not so clear in civil court.
Establishing Liability With a Lawsuit
Civil court does not deal with alleged crimes. A defendant in a civil case is not being prosecuted for alleged activity. Rather, the whole point of civil litigation is to establish rights, responsibilities, and liability. In most cases, liability is the big issue.
A personal injury case is the classic example. Imagine a plaintiff suing a manufacturer for injuries sustained while using that manufacturer’s product. The plaintiff alleges that the manufacturer either knew or should have known about safety issues regarding the product in question. That being the case, the manufacturer is liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
It’s up to the court to examine the facts of the case before determining liability. A court could determine one of three things:
- The manufacturer is 100% liable.
- The plaintiff is 100% liable.
- The plaintiff and manufacturer share liability.
The court will render its decision based on its liability findings. Let us say the court comes to the first conclusion. The manufacturer would be liable for 100% of whatever amount is awarded. But if the court determines that the manufacturer is only 80% liable, then only 80% of the award will be ordered. Of course, a finding that the plaintiff is 100% liable for their own injuries means no award will be paid.
What Happens After the Fact
Another interesting aspect of civil court is what happens after litigation. While courts are involved in determining the facts of a case and establishing liability, they rarely get involved in enforcement efforts. When a monetary award is in play, courts do not participate in collection. The winning parties initiate collection efforts on their own, let the attorneys handle it, or bring in firms like Salt Lake City’s Judgment Collectors.
Things are different in criminal court. Following a conviction, a criminal court has a legal obligation to pass sentence. Sentencing is essentially enforcement of the law. Courts have some sentencing leeway in most cases. However, sentences for certain types of crimes are ironclad. Courts have no say in such cases. They must hand down the sentence required by law.
Where criminal courts hand down verdicts, civil courts establish liability. Civil courts do not render verdicts because crimes are not alleged. That is really what it boils down to.
