How Well Do You Know Your Legal Rights?

Five quick questions. You might be surprised by the answers.

What standard must prosecutors meet to convict someone in a criminal trial?

• More likely than not — That's actually the civil standard — the lower bar used in lawsuits for money damages. Criminal conviction requires something much harder to clear.
• Beyond a reasonable doubt — Correct. This is an intentionally high bar that exists to protect people from wrongful conviction. It means the jury cannot hold any fair, honest doubt grounded in the evidence.
• Clear and convincing evidence — Close — this is a real legal standard used in some civil proceedings, but it sits between the civil and criminal bars. Criminal conviction requires the higher 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold.
• Unanimous community agreement — Not a legal standard. The criminal bar is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' — and it applies to each juror individually, not to community consensus.

In a civil wrongful death lawsuit, what does a plaintiff need to prove?

• The defendant acted with malicious intent — Intent is often relevant in criminal law, but civil liability doesn't require it. A civil plaintiff only needs to show it was more probable than not that the defendant played a role.
• That the defendant is more likely than not responsible — Exactly right. Attorneys and judges describe this threshold as anything just over 50 percent — a dramatically lower bar than the criminal standard.
• The same 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard as criminal court — This is one of the most common misconceptions. Civil and criminal courts operate on entirely different standards — which is precisely why someone can be acquitted criminally and still lose a civil case.
• That the defendant was the only possible cause — Not in civil law. Under civil liability, a defendant can be held responsible even if the jury believes more than one person shared responsibility for the harm.

How much was O.J. Simpson ordered to pay in his 1995 civil wrongful death case?

• $8.5 million — The actual figure was far larger. The civil jury ordered Simpson to pay $33.5 million in damages — despite his criminal acquittal less than two years earlier.
• $33.5 million — Correct. The civil jury needed only to believe it was more likely true than not — and on that lower standard, they found him liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
• $12 million — Not quite. The civil jury ordered $33.5 million — a number that illustrated just how different civil and criminal outcomes can be from the same underlying facts.
• Nothing — the criminal acquittal protected him — This is a common assumption, but it's wrong. A criminal acquittal does not shield a defendant from civil liability. Simpson was acquitted criminally in October 1995 and found civilly liable less than two years later.

Karen Read was acquitted in June 2025. What happened next?

• The case was permanently closed — Not exactly. While her criminal case concluded with acquittal on all charges, the estate of John O'Keefe filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against her — putting the same core allegation before a different court under different rules.
• O'Keefe's estate filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against her — Correct. Despite her acquittals on second-degree murder, manslaughter, and leaving the scene, Read now faces the same core allegation in a civil courtroom — where the burden of proof is dramatically lower.
• The prosecution appealed the acquittal — Double jeopardy protections prevent the government from re-trying a defendant after a criminal acquittal. The civil route — a private lawsuit — is a separate legal track with different rules and different parties.
• A retrial was ordered by the judge — There was a mistrial in her first proceeding, but her June 2025 acquittal on all charges ended the criminal track. What followed was a civil lawsuit filed by O'Keefe's estate — an entirely separate legal action.

In a civil lawsuit, can a defendant be held liable if the jury believes multiple people shared responsibility for a harm?

• No — only if they were the sole cause — This is how many people assume civil law works, but it's not the standard. Civil liability can attach even when responsibility is shared among multiple parties.
• Yes — shared responsibility does not prevent civil liability — Correct. Under civil law, a defendant can be held liable even if the jury believes more than one person contributed to the harm. This is one of the key ways civil and criminal standards diverge.
• Only in cases involving wrongful death — Shared responsibility isn't limited to wrongful death cases — it applies broadly in civil litigation. The Karen Read and O.J. Simpson cases simply illustrate how consequential this distinction can be.
• Only if the defendant was the primary cause — Civil liability doesn't require being the primary or sole cause. The threshold is whether the defendant played a role — and whether that role made harm more probable than not.

Most people assume that a 'not guilty' verdict in a criminal trial puts a legal matter to rest for good. Two of the most closely watched cases of the past three decades show exactly why that assumption can be wrong — and why understanding the difference between criminal and civil law can matter far beyond the headlines.

Criminal Court vs. Civil Court: The Key Differences

Karen Read's case became a national obsession. Read was charged in connection with the January 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe. After a mistrial in her first criminal proceeding, she was acquitted in June 2025 of second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating under the influence, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. By most measures, that should have been the end of it.

Yet O'Keefe's estate has filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against her — meaning Read now faces the same core allegation in a different courtroom, under a completely different set of rules.

In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' That phrase has a precise legal meaning. It is not an imaginary or far-fetched doubt — it is a fair, honest doubt grounded in the evidence, or the lack of it.Maura Battersby, Attorney at Flood Law

Two Famous Cases, Two Very Different Outcomes

• Oct 1995 — O.J. Simpson acquitted of criminal murder charges
• 1997 — Civil jury finds Simpson liable — orders $33.5M in damages
• Jan 2022 — John O'Keefe found dead — Karen Read charged
• 2024 — First criminal trial ends in mistrial
• June 2025 — Read acquitted on all criminal charges
• After June 2025 — O'Keefe estate files wrongful death civil lawsuit against Read

The civil jury in Read's wrongful death case won't be asked whether she almost certainly caused O'Keefe's death. They'll only be asked whether it is more probable than not that she played a role. Under civil law, a defendant can be held liable even if the jury believes more than one person shared responsibility.

The gap between those two standards is significant — and it explains outcomes that can feel contradictory to the public. The justice system has parallel tracks, and a verdict on one track does not automatically determine the outcome on the other.

Common Legal Myths — Checked

A 'not guilty' criminal verdict means you can never be sued for the same incident.

Verdict: false

A criminal acquittal does not prevent a civil lawsuit. O.J. Simpson was acquitted criminally in 1995 and found civilly liable less than two years later. Karen Read's 2025 acquittal similarly did not prevent a wrongful death civil suit from being filed.

Civil and criminal courts use the same burden of proof.

Verdict: false

They use completely different standards. Criminal conviction requires proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' — an intentionally high bar. Civil liability requires only that the plaintiff prove the defendant was 'more likely than not' responsible — described by attorneys as anything just over 50 percent.

In a civil case, a defendant must have been the sole cause of harm to be held liable.

Verdict: false

Under civil law, a defendant can be held liable even if the jury believes more than one person shared responsibility for the harm. This is one of the key distinctions between civil and criminal liability.

The 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard exists to protect defendants.

Verdict: true

Exactly right. As Flood Law attorney Maura Battersby explains, the high criminal standard 'exists to protect people from wrongful conviction.' It is an intentionally elevated bar — which is also why civil courts use a lower threshold when the outcome is financial damages rather than incarceration.

Understanding this distinction matters whether you're following a high-profile case on the news or navigating a legal situation of your own. Flood Law, a Michigan-based personal injury and civil litigation firm, regularly weighs in on legal matters like these as part of what they describe as a commitment to public legal education.

The firm handles cases involving wrongful death, catastrophic injury, sexual assault, civil rights, and criminal defense, among other practice areas.

If You Think You Have a Civil Case: Where to Start

1. Understand the standard that applies to you — Civil cases require proving the other party was 'more likely than not' responsible — a lower bar than criminal court. If you were told a case wasn't worth pursuing after a criminal acquittal, that may not be the full picture.
2. Document everything you can — Civil cases turn on evidence. Preserve records, photographs, communications, and witness information as soon as possible after an incident — the sooner the better.
3. Know that shared responsibility doesn't disqualify you — In civil law, more than one party can share liability. Even if you believe multiple people played a role in what happened to you, a civil claim may still be viable.
4. Consult an attorney who handles civil litigation — Flood Law's attorneys — including Maura Battersby, who explained the burden-of-proof distinction — handle wrongful death, catastrophic injury, civil rights, and related practice areas. An initial conversation can clarify what track your situation might be on.

Flood Law's Practice Areas

Flood Law is a Michigan-based personal injury and civil litigation firm. The firm handles cases in the following areas, among others: wrongful death, catastrophic injury, sexual assault, civil rights, and criminal defense.

The firm describes its approach as combining disciplined litigation, strategic advocacy, and decades of courtroom experience in pursuit of accountability and meaningful outcomes for every client they represent.

Flood Law also engages in public legal education — providing commentary on high-profile cases and legal principles to help the public understand how the justice system works.

Have Questions About a Civil Case?

• Flood Law — Michigan Personal Injury & Civil Litigation: Flood Law handles wrongful death, catastrophic injury, civil rights, sexual assault, and criminal defense cases. Their attorneys regularly explain complex legal principles to help the public understand their rights.