Plaintiff vs. Defendant

The terms plaintiff and defendant are used in both civil and criminal cases.

In criminal cases, the plaintiff is typically identified as “The People”—the State, on behalf of the victim. The defendant is the individual(s) being accused of a crime or code violation.

In civil cases, like a personal injury case, the plaintiff is a private individual or business alleging that wrongdoing has been done to them. The defendant is the person(s) or entity that has been accused of committing a wrongful act.

An easy way to remember the difference between plaintiff vs. defendant in legal disputes is that “defendant” has the word “defend” in it.

Who Is the Plaintiff?

In criminal cases, a prosecutor typically identified as “The People” represents the plaintiff (victim) on behalf of the State.

In a civil case, the plaintiff files (or the personal injury attorney, providing their legal representation, files the plaintiff’s complaint on their behalf) a civil complaint against the other party in court, seeking compensation for harm. The plaintiff initiates the civil lawsuit and must prove their case against the defendant. For example, after a car crash, the injured victim pursuing compensation with the help of a car accident lawyer who files a personal injury lawsuit is the plaintiff.

Who Is the Defendant?

In criminal cases, a defendant is the person accused of the crime. They have certain rights guaranteed to them by law, such as the right to an attorney and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

In the legal system, involving a civil case, the defendant is the person or entity being sued. They are responsible for defending themselves against the plaintiff’s claims. For example, in a car accident case, the defendant is the person who caused the accident (and/or their insurance company).

Burden of Proof: How Civil and Criminal Cases Differ

The law provides a way for victims to seek justice for wrongdoing committed by the accused. Depending on the type of crime or misconduct, a case may be pursued in criminal law courts or civil law courts (sometimes even both). Criminal law and civil law have different standards of proof that are required to win a case. In legal terms, this is the burden of proof.

What Is the Burden of Proof?

In legal proceedings, the burden of proof is defined as:

• A duty and responsibility placed on a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact
• A duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact

It can also define which party bears this burden.

Who Has the Burden of Proof?

In a criminal case, the State has the burden of proof to show by way of convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. Failure to provide evidence to the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt can result in the defendant being found not guilty.

In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show by way of presenting evidence that the defendant is responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reasonable Doubt

In the legal process of the criminal world, a jury or judge must be persuaded that the accused who allegedly committed the crime is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts have defined reasonable doubt to be its own best definition:

• “Reasonable doubt” needs no definition. People v. Davis, 1950, 406 Ill. 215, 92 N.E.2d 649; People v. Hansen, 1914, 263 Ill. 44, 104 N.E. 1069.
• The concept of reasonable doubt needs no explanation because there is no better definition of reasonable doubt than the words themselves, and thus it is improper for an attorney to attempt to define the concept of reasonable doubt. People v. Garcia, App. 1 Dist.1981, 59 Ill. Dec. 477, 103 Ill.App.3d 779, 431 N.E.2d 1234.

Reasonable doubt is the highest burden within the law to prove because it’s fact-based, it depends on the circumstances, and it holds the highest consequence for those parties involved. Its intended purpose is to ensure that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are not.

Preponderance of the Evidence

In the civil world, the plaintiff (the alleged harmed victim who seeks legal remedy in their legal case) must satisfy the burden by the preponderance of the evidence. It has been defined in Illinois courts as evidence that is more convincing than opposing evidence:

• A preponderance of the evidence is proof that the fact at issue is more likely true than not. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Hansen, 2016 IL App (1st) 143720.
• “Preponderance of the evidence” is defined as evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence that is offered in opposition to it. In re Aniylah B., 2016 IL App (1st) 153662.

In practice, the preponderance of the evidence is explained as 51% of the evidence must be in favor of the plaintiff. It can also be described as tipping a balanced scale slightly in one direction compared to the other, so it’s more likely than not that the defendant is responsible.