Final answer:
In criminal cases, the government prosecutes individuals who are accused of breaking the law, unlike civil cases that involve disputes between private parties. The burden of proof in criminal cases is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', a much higher standard compared to civil cases. While most criminal proceedings take place in state courts, federal courts hear cases involving federal law or constitutional issues.
Step-by-step explanation:
In a criminal case, the government prosecutes an individual for breaking the law. This differs from civil cases, where disputes between private parties are settled. In criminal law, governments establish rules and enforce punishments for behavior deemed harmful to others. These crimes are categorized as felonies or misdemeanors, with felonies being more serious. The plaintiff in a criminal case is always the government, whether state or federal, depending on the jurisdiction over the alleged crime. For instance, the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona is a criminal case where the state government charged the defendant.
In contrast to civil law, where the burden of proof is 'a preponderance of the evidence', criminal trials have a much higher standard, requiring proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' because the defendant faces the potential loss of liberty or even life. The O.J. Simpson trial provides a well-known example where an acquitted criminal case was followed by a civil case regarding the same matter, underlining the separate jurisdictions of these two branches of law.
Most criminal cases are heard in state courts, although the federal court system will intervene in matters involving federal law or constitutional issues. Both trial courts and appellate courts handle criminal matters but with different roles. Trial courts focus on establishing guilt and sentencing, while appellate courts review the decisions of lower courts if there are claims of legal errors in the process.