Demandante contra demandado

Los términos demandante y demandado se utilizan tanto en causas civiles como penales.

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.

¿Quién es el demandante?

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.

¿Quién es el demandado?

En los casos penales, un acusado es la persona acusada del delito. Tiene ciertos derechos que le garantiza la ley, como el derecho a un abogado y la presunción de inocencia hasta que se demuestre su culpabilidad.

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).

La carga de la prueba: Diferencias entre los asuntos civiles y penales

La ley ofrece a las víctimas una vía para reclamar justicia por las faltas cometidas por el acusado. Dependiendo del tipo de delito o conducta indebida, un caso puede ser llevado ante tribunales de derecho penal o de derecho civil (a veces incluso ante ambos). El derecho penal y el derecho civil tienen diferentes estándares de prueba que se requieren para ganar un caso. En términos jurídicos, se trata de la carga de la prueba.

¿Qué es la carga de la prueba?

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

También puede definir qué parte soporta esta carga.

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.

Duda razonable

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:

• "Duda razonable" no necesita definición. Pueblo contra Davis, 1950, 406 Ill. 215, 92 N.E.2d 649; Pueblo contra 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.

La duda razonable es la mayor carga de la ley para probar porque se basa en hechos, depende de las circunstancias y tiene las mayores consecuencias para las partes implicadas. Su objetivo es garantizar que los culpables sean condenados y los inocentes no.

Preponderancia de las pruebas

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:

• Una preponderancia de la evidencia es la prueba de que el hecho en cuestión es más probable cierto que no. 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.