Are there different standards for determining liability in a civil suit and guilt

Are there different standards for determining liability in a civil suit and guilt in a criminal case?
Yes. The Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution--together with state constitutional provisions, treats a criminal conviction (and the possibility of a prison term or death sentence) as more serious than a finding of civil liability. Accordingly, it is more difficult to convict someone of a crime than it is to obtain a civil judgment against a defendant.
In a civil suit, the question that a trial judge or jury will ask when making a decision is whether a plaintiff has proven that it was more likely than not that the defendant was legally responsible for the plaintiff's injury or loss. This preponderance-of-the-evidence standard means that if the evidence favors the plaintiff by even the slightest bit, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict in his or her favor. In a criminal case, on the other hand, the standard is much higher: The prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if it is more likely than not that a criminal defendant is guilty of the crime charged, the proper verdict is not guilty if there remains a reasonable doubt about his or her guilt.
The United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants many other rights, including the right to a jury trial when there is the possibility of a conviction resulting in a prison term of six months or more, the right to have a lawyer appointed if the defendant cannot afford to hire one where there is a possibility of a loss of liberty, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a swift and public trial. State constitutions may guarantee other rights, including rights to a jury trial in lesser offenses.
from