<P> The standards of proof are higher in a criminal action than in a civil one since the loser risks not only financial penalties but also being sent to prison (or, in some countries, execution). In English law the prosecution must prove the guilt of a criminal "beyond reasonable doubt"; but the plaintiff in a civil action is required to prove his case "on the balance of probabilities". "Beyond reasonable doubt" is not defined for the jury which decides the verdict, but it has been said by appeal courts that proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt requires the prosecution to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence: Plomp v. R. In a civil case, however, the court simply weighs the evidence and decides what is most probable . </P> <P> Criminal and civil procedure are different . Although some systems, including the English, allow a private citizen to bring a criminal prosecution against another citizen, criminal actions are nearly always started by the state . Civil actions, on the other hand, are usually started by individuals . </P> <P> In Anglo - American law, the party bringing a criminal action (that is, in most cases, the state) is called the prosecution, but the party bringing a civil action is the plaintiff . In both kinds of action the other party is known as the defendant . A criminal case against a person called Ms. Sanchez would be described as "United States vs. (= versus, or against) Sanchez" in the United States if initiated by the federal government; if initiated by a state, it would typically be called "(Name of the State) vs. Sanchez" or "The People vs. Sanchez ." In England, it would be styled "R. (Regina, that is, the Queen) vs. Sanchez ." But a civil action between Ms. Sanchez and a Mr. Smith would be "Sanchez vs. Smith" if started by Sanchez, and "Smith vs. Sanchez" if started by Mr. Smith . </P> <P> Evidence given at a criminal trial is not necessarily admissible in a civil action about the same matter, just as evidence given in a civil cause is not necessarily admissible on a criminal trial . For example, the victim of a road accident does not directly benefit if the driver who injured him is found guilty of the crime of careless driving . He still has to prove his case in a civil action . In fact he may be able to prove his civil case even when the driver is found not guilty in the criminal trial . If the accused has given evidence on his trial he may be cross-examined on those statements in a subsequent civil action regardless of the criminal verdict . </P>

Who initiates legal proceedings in a criminal action
find me the text answering this question