Pembleton's attorney in the civil case against him says that since it's a civil case they "must disprove guilt rather than prove innocence"; it's a simplistic but accurate way to describe how a civil case is different. In a criminal case, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, the prosecution has to prove the defendant's guilt BEYOND a reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn't actually have to prove their innocence, they only need to introduce enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt as to their guilt; compared to a civil case, the defense's burden is much easier in a criminal case, even if the stakes are far higher. However, in a civil case, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff to prove their claim by a preponderance of the evidence; in other words, they only have to prove that it is more likely than not that the defendant is responsible, which is far short of a criminal case's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So, from a defendant's standpoint, the burden is more difficult in a civil case than it is in a criminal case; instead of only having to create a reasonable doubt of their guilt, the defendant in a civil case must actually prove that they aren't guilty by convincing the judge or jury that it is more likely than not that they are not responsible for the plaintiff claims. They have to do more than just simply create a reasonable doubt.