the difference of civil case and criminal case?
112903
A civil case is heard in civil court and is the result of an individual or group asking the court or jury to award monatary compensation or restitution.\n\nA criminal case is heard in criminal court and is presented by an attorney for the state or government office and asks the court or jury to punish a wrongdoing by jail or prison sentence and/or fines payable to the office that filed the complaint.\n\nThe major difference is that criminal court is for when a crime has been commited, while civil court is for law suits and litigation for money.\n\nI hope this helps....take care
294739
Criminal court is where OJ gets off the hook. Civil court is where they side-stepped double jeopardy and sued him for violating Nichol's rights, by killing her.
828008
Slander is usually something that is said, while libel is something that is written, or physical. But both are defamation. Assuming this is in regards to a case, a defamation case is a civil action where the plaintiff felt that his or her reputation has been damaged, or his or her way of life has been altered by a false statement made in regards to him/her. These are usually the only cases with "no win, no fee."
337967
Basically there are two groups. Those that deal with civil law and those who deal with criminal law. Among the civil lawyers include those who deal with business, education,environmental, family, and personal injury. Criminal lawyers seem to specialize in either prosecuting or defending criminals. For you to decide which practice area would be best for you contact your state or county BAR association and ask them for some help learning about what is available. Good luck.
79865
It is difficult to answer your question without knowing more facts.  Rules of procedure vary by state and can also vary based on the type of proceeding or appeal.\n\nStays in criminal cases will be different than stays in civil cases.  An appeal while the case is pending might stay the entire case.  An appeal after the case might stay enforcement of a civil judgment or imposition of a criminal sentence.\n\nSome stays might terminate automatically when the court of appeal renders an opinion.  Some stays might require further action by the court.  There are just to many variables to answer your question specifically.\n\nYou should post more details about the case include the state, the type of proceeding, the status of the appeal and how the stay was issued.
551074
-The application of scientific knowledge to questions of civil and criminal law.\n\n-The application of a field of science to the facts related to criminal and civil litigation.\n\n-Forensics or forensic science is the application of science to questions which are of interest to the legal system as well as social sciences such as archaeology.
758827
Most criminal and civil matters are tried at the state court level in Texas and all other states. The only cases that rise to the federal level are those involving:\na. criminal violations of federal law\nb. civil cases where:\n    1. there is jurisdiction in federal court because of diversity of citizenship among the parties, and\n    2. the primary cause of action involves interpretation of or rights under a federal statute.
803526
I'm in the UK but the basic principles are much the same. \n\nDouble Jeopardy means that you cannot be tried for exactly the same crime twice - particularly murder. For crimes such as this, a person must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" (this is known as the "burden of proof").\n\nFor wrongful death, the burden of proof is lower because a wrongful death suit is a civil action (rather than a criminal prosecution). For civil actions the burden of proof merely requires that they be found guilty "on the balance of probabilities" - in other words an element of reasonable doubt is permitted.\n\nWrongful death actions often occur after a criminal murder trial has failed through lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt even though there is a strong suspicion that the accused person is responsible for the death.\n\nIncidentally, here in the UK there has recently been the first conviction under Double Jeopardy. The law was recently changed allowing a person to be tried a second time after having been found not guilty at their first trial. A second trial is now permitted if significant new evidence is brought forward which brings into question the verdict at the first trial. This is basically in response to advances in DNA and forensic science.
933042
Not sure what you mean but perhaps; the law is divided into criminal and civil law and also into statute and case law.\n\nThe division into criminal and civil law is fairly obvious and very broadly speaking civil law may be regarded as being concerned with contracts made between people and or companies or states.\n\nStatute law are the laws passed by government a system we inherited from the Romans. Case law is derived from the old Anglo-Saxon system of justice is based on precedence established in previous cases it is also concerned with interpretation of statute law.
157880
In order to win a malpractice claim or "get your money back" it is not enough that you lost your case when you thought you would win it.  Rememebr, there was always another side that thought they would win too.\n\nYou don't say whether this was a criminal or civil trial.  You can always seek another attorney for an appeal (but do it quickly.) It will cost you though, unless you qualify as a criminal defendant for a public defender.  If so, ask for another is you don't have one.
1156377
There are two basic types of law - criminal or civil.   Within these two designations there are sub-types (ie. civil includes family court, probate court, etc.).\n\nThe main difference between the two is that criminal court allows punishment of the guilty to include incarceration.  Both civil and criminal allow the guilty to pay fines, fees, etc.; but only criminal can put you in lock-up.
157350
The only difference is how the law treats them.\n\nSome offenses are illegal and stupid. Some are just stupid.
1181074
Probable cause is\nA reasonable belief that a person committed a crime.\nAppeals court requires facts & circumstances are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe suspect commited the crime.
1016529
Because a criminal trial has a different standard for guilt or innocence ("beyond a reasonable doubt") as opposed to the standard for a civil lawsuit ("preponderance of the evidence" or basically, which side has the better evidence).  If OJ had lost the criminal trial, then he would have been liable civilly because he had already lost on the higher standard of proof.  But he didn't.\n\nDana, practicing lawyer
1157963
You need to clarify your question.  Civil law has several meanings.  It can mean the opposite of criminal law, or it can mean the opposite of English common law.  In neither of those settings, however, are there four widely known "assumptions", so your question lacks meaning in this form.  Provide more information or, if the question comes from a textbook, consult it for whatever assumptions it claims exist.  Try your question again with more detail and context, and I'll bet someone will get you an answer.
582741
Yes the definitions are very different every state has its own penal code and is free to define crimes and punishments for them in any way they see fit.\n\n\nFor example:\n\nPennsylvania penal code [1] defines 2nd degree murder as "-A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the second degree when it is committed while defendant was engaged as a principal or\nan accomplice in the perpetration of a felony. "\n\nwhile \n\nNew york penal code defines 2nd degree murder COMPLETELY differently (see NY penal code 125.25)[2] as:\n A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:\n\n 1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person;  except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that:\n\n  (a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.  Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime;  or\n\n  (b) The defendant's conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide.  Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the second degree or any other crime;  or\n\n 2. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person;  or\n\n 3. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree, or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants;  except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, in which the defendant was not the only participant in the underlying crime, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant:\n\n  (a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof;  and\n\n  (b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons;  and\n\n  (c) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance;  and\n\n  (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury;  or\n\n 4. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, and being eighteen years old or more the defendant recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to another person less than eleven years old and thereby causes the death of such person; or\n\n5. Being eighteen years old or more, while in the course of committing rape in the first, second or third degree, criminal sexual act in the first, second or third degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse in the first, second, third or fourth degree, or incest as defined in section 255.25 of this chapter, against a person less than fourteen years old, he or she intentionally causes the death of such person.
1134316
In some states the same result is allowed by a plea of no contest.  That is a concession that the prosecution is likely to present enough evidence to convince a judge or jury without admitting guilt.  \n\nIt should be noted that while a guilty plea or verdict can be used in a later civil lawsuit to conclusively prove all facts necessary to a verdict of guilty, a no contest plea can not be so used.  If the civil liability may be great in comparison to the criminal penalty, there can be a great incentive to a no contest plea or an Alford plea.