Opposite Title of a case All the cases have the plaintiff's name first and and defendent's name after it ( as in Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghose). But there's a case wherein the defendant's name comes first ( in: Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Husaini Begum). Why so?
The custom is that the person who brings the case is named first. This will be the plaintiff in a civil case. But when the plaintiff wins, and the defendant appeals, the case in the appeals court may have that person (often referred to in older cases as the "defendant appellant") named first. More recent practice is to keep the name of the case the same. But it used to be considered a separate case with a separate name in some jurisdictions. In any event, this is merely a custom, and not a law. The court has discretion to name cases as it chooses in its judgements, and if a court chooses for whatever reason to follows a practice that differs from the usual one, that is the name of that particular case. Without a full citation or a link, so that the actual opinion could be consulted, three is no way to know what reason, if any, there was for the order of parties in the particular case mentioned in the question. A quick Google search did not turn up the case.
I'm curious as to how the US legal system determines who should present evidence and how much evidence is required by them to prove one side of an argument against a counterargument. In General In both criminal and civil cases in common law legal systems (legal systems derived from the English legal system, basically, the U.S., U.K., Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh), the burden of proof is on the party seeking to have a court do something. So, if the absence of evidence, the party seeking relief loses. Proof Of The Elements Of The Charge Or Cause Of Action Presentation of Evidence and the Prima Facie Case The party seeking court action presents their evidence first. If at the close of their opening case that party has not presented enough evidence to meet their burden of proof with respect to every "element" of the list of legal elements that they must prove to prevail in court, that party has not established a "prima facie case" and the case is dismissed without granting relief. If the prosecution or party bringing a civil case establishes a prima facie case, or if the defense does ask to have the case dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case at the close of the evidence of the party asking the court to do something, then the defense presents their evidence if the defense wishes to do so (this is optional). (If the defense does present evidence, the prosecution or civil party seeking relief can then present a rebuttal case to disprove the new points of evidence in the defense case, and so on, back and forth until all evidence is taken.) Evaluating The Evidence In Light Of The Burden Of Proof Once both the party asking the court to do something and the defense have presented all of their evidence, the trier of fact (i.e. the jury in a jury trial, or a judge in a bench trial) decides if every element of the case of the party asking the court to do something has been established by the relevant burden of proof. In a civil case, the burden of proof is usually a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. that the evidence more strongly favors that the element was established than that it was not established); some elements on some claims in civil cases must be established by the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence." In a criminal case, the burden of proof is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". Affirmative Defenses In addition to elements of a case that must be established to make a prima facie case, there are also "affirmative defenses" to a request that a court do something. Examples of affirmative defenses include self-defense, statute of limitations, immunity from suit, a pardon in a criminal case, etc. A defendant can win ether by showing that the party asking the court to do something has failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to one or more elements of the case, or by showing that an affirmative defense bars the request. In both criminal cases and civil cases, the burden is on the defense to show that there is at least some evidence that justifies consideration of an affirmative defense. This is called a "burden of production." In a civil case (and in some criminal cases in some jurisdictions), the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense by preponderance of the evidence. In some criminal cases in some jurisdictions, once the defense has met a burden of production with regard to an affirmative defense, the prosecution must rule out the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt to prevail. Deciding Who Wins Once both the party asking the court to do something and the defense have presented all of their evidence, the trier of fact (i.e. the jury in a jury trial, or a judge in a bench trial) decides if an affirmative defenses prohibit the party asking the court to do something from prevailing. The party asking the court to do something wins unless the defense can show that this party did not meet the burden of proof as to any one element of a particular criminal charge or civil cause of action (for each charge or cause of action), or that an affirmative defense bars that particular charge or cause of action. Often cases have conflicting testimony regarding what happened. The jury (or judge in a bench trial) can choose to belief that one person is telling the truth and that the other statement is either a lie or is unintentionally inaccurate for some reason. If the jury (or judge in a bench trial) isn't at all sure whose statement is true and whose is not, this favors the defendant if one is not more credible than the other. Complex Cases In a simple case, there is just one charge or cause of action, and there is just one defendant. But, often, there are multiple charges or causes of action, and each one must be evaluated as to each defendant of the multiple defendants in a single trial. In a civil case, sometimes there are counterclaims that defendants are trying to prove against plaintiffs, or cross-claims that defendants or counterclaim defendants are trying to prove against each other that have to be evaluated. Also, in civil cases, sometimes one or more of the defendants is also prosecuting one or more separate causes of action against someone other than the original plaintiffs or co-defendants. In that case, that defendant is also a third-party plaintiff, and someone other than the original plaintiff and defendants is a third-party defendant (third-party defendants can also bring third-party counterclaims against the third-party plaintiff, third-party crossclaims against third-party codefendants, or their own claims against new parties or against the original plaintiffs). Other Rules Special Statutes Regarding Proof Of Facts Sometimes, there are particular kind of facts for which a statute says that a "prima facie case" is established automatically if a certain kind of evidence is presented. For example, it is common for the law to say that a prima facie case regarding ownership of real estate, or the status of a bus as a school bus, is established by presenting a copy of an official document that says so. Usually, when a statute says something like that, the prima facie case can still be overcome, for example, by presenting a subsequent document that shows that the real estate was then sold to someone else, or that the school bus status of the bus was later revoked. But, when a statute like that is present, the plaintiff or prosecutor doesn't have a duty to prove the negative that there was no subsequent sale of the real estate or that the school bus status certificate was still in force on the date of the incident. Rules of Evidence There are also "rules of evidence" that govern what kind of facts can be presented at a trial to prove a case. For example, in a U.S. criminal trial a fact cannot be established with evidence that is hearsay, such as an affidavit or a statement that a witness heard someone else say and is retelling to the court. A very important rule of evidence in U.S. criminal trials that flows from the United States Constitution, is the evidence obtained by law enforcement illegally may not be presented by the prosecution, even if it definitively shows that a defendant is guilty. This is called the "exclusionary rule." Application To Facts Is it up to the prosecution to present full and complete evidence that the system only takes pictures when the bus is stopped (presumably reviewing source code or conducting tests) or is there some kind of legal concept of "good enough at a glance" evidence where they've met some minimum burden of proof that the picture is taken when the system is turned on and it's only on when the bus is stopped, therefore it must be functioning as expected? The prosecution has to convince the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) that every element of the crime as define in the statute has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that any affirmative defense upon which the defense meets a burden of production has been overcome by the relevant burden of proof. Usually, this is a broad legal standard, and the jury (or judge in a bench trial) has to decide if the burden of proof has been met by the facts presented which were legally admissible as evidence. It wouldn't be uncommon for a defendant to present no new evidence in a defense case (other than having cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses) and merely argue at the completion of the prosecution's case that the evidence presented didn't establish a particular element of the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, the defense might argue that the picture presented by the prosecution was not taken when the bus was at a complete stop, and if the prosecution didn't present some convincing evidence that the bus was at a complete stop when the picture was taken (e.g. the testimony of the bus driver and other witnesses), the defense should win. But, it is almost always up to the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) to decide if the prosecution's evidence is good enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved the case. Often a defendant will not want to call any witnesses beyond the witnesses presented in the prosecution case, because a defendant's witness might cause the jury to overcome its doubt that a fact only weakly proved by the prosecution was actually true, for example, when only one not very credible prosecution witness had testified regarding the same fact. If the identical case were presented to two different juries, one jury could decide to believe the bus driver who said that the bus was at a stop when the picture was taken, and a different jury could decide not to belief the bus driver, and both decisions would be valid. Consequences Of A Verdict If the judge or jury acquits the defendant in a criminal case, the case is over and there is no appeal. If the jury is hung (there is no unanimous ruling to convict or acquit (but see endnote)), in a criminal case, there is a mistrial and the defendant can be tried again. If the jury convicts, one of the grounds for an appeal by the defendant is that the evidence was insufficient to prove some element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the appellate court agrees than the conviction is overturned and there can be a retrial (or in some cases, the defendant is acquitted). Appellate Review Of The Sufficiency Of The Proof The law recognizes that different juries could interpret exactly the same facts in different ways and will reverse a conviction because the burden of proof was not met only if "no reasonable jury" could have interpreted the evidence in a manner consistent with a conviction. For example, on appeal, an appellate court will always assume that the jury thought that every pro-defendant witness, whose credibility was questioned in any way by the prosecution, was lying and that the jury believed that every pro-prosecution witness was telling the truth, even if the defense presented evidence that could have caused a reasonable juror to question the truthfulness of a prosecution witness. Appeals for failure to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt can be easier in a bench trial than in a jury trial because following a bench trial the judge will often publicly state the actual reasons in terms of findings of fact and law that the judge used to reach a conclusion. So, the defendant need only show that a key fact actually found by the judge was not supported by the requisite proof. END NOTE Oregon State, and prior to 2019, Louisiana, did not require juries in all criminal cases to be unanimous.
The author of the passage is telling you where the quotation comes from, using a formal case citation. Lawyers usually don't use footnotes, endnotes, or parentheses to set off these citations. Case citations are a sort of shorthand developed by lawyers and judges over the past few centuries. The goal is generally to identify the name of the case, where to locate it, when it was decided, and what court decided it. Although there are a few different styles for formal citations to cases, you don't need to learn much to cover the basics for common types of cases. How to Read It Case name Brown v. Bd. of Educ. Case names usually have a "v." in the middle. Most of the time, the plaintiff goes on the left and the defendant goes on the right. But United States Supreme Court cases are different. Almost always, the Supreme Court reviews decisions of lower courts. They do so in an unusual way: the loser in the lower court asks the Supreme Court to change the outcome. Because the loser, more formally called the "appellant," is the one initiating proceedings in the Supreme Court, they go on the left. (To learn more, look into "writ of certiorari.") Since Brown is a Supreme Court case, we can guess that Brown lost in the lower court; and indeed that's what happened in this case. There are some arcane rules about abbreviating case names. The full name of this case is "Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka." If you're a law student, especially if you're on the law review, you get to learn all about these rules. If you're not, thank your lucky stars and try not to worry about it. Volume, reporter, and page number 347 U.S. 483 This is the bit you want to copy and paste to find the case. It's a lot like a URL: the idea is to clearly identify and locate a case. If you just want to find the case on the Internet, you don't need to understand how it works, and you can skip to the next section. These three parts tell you where to find the beginning of the case in a good old-fashioned printed book. You know those yellow books in the background of lawyer advertisements? That's what we're talking about. They're called "reporters," because they originally contained somebody else's reports of what judges said in court. Now, of course, the judges write down their own decisions; but the name stuck. The middle part, here "U.S.", identifies what set of books the case is in. You can learn something about the court from this: U.S. -- United States Reports -- United States Supreme Court F., F.2d, F.3d -- Federal Reporter -- Federal Courts of Appeal F. Supp -- Federal Supplement -- Federal District Courts (trial courts) The first number is what volume the case is in. This is the number printed on the spine of the book. The second number is what page the case begins on. Pinpoint citation , 495 When somebody wants to refer to a specific place in a case, they just put the page number or range right after the case page number. Remember, "483" was the page the case starts on; "495" is the page where the court actually say what we're talking about. If you flip to page 495 of volume 347 of the U.S. Reports, you'll find the quoted sentence. Remember: usually when you see two numbers separated by a comma, like "483, 495", the first one is part of the citation to the case as a whole, and the second one says what page to look at. Date and court name (1954) This part varies a lot between the different formal styles. In "Bluebook" style, which most law journals use, the year the case was decided is enclosed in parentheses, along with anything necessary to identify the court. Here, there's no court name, because we already know from the "U.S." that it's a Supreme Court case. For lower appellate cases, this might be "(9th Cir. 2005)", meaning that it's a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 2005. Dealing with short citations You may also see something like "Id. at 495". This is a short citation; "Id." means "the last thing I cited." Go back to the nearest previous citation and look that up, going to the page cited. How to Use It (aka "tl;dr") The key to actually finding a case on the Internet is to copy the three numbers in the middle--the volume, reporter name, and page number. Here, "347 U.S. 483". Don't include any pincite after a comma; Google and many search engines may be clever enough to figure out what you mean, but they may not. There are a bunch of free online services providing case texts. I prefer Google Scholar; just paste the citation in, being sure to select "case law". Other people like CourtListener, FindLaw, and Justia.com. Commercial databases like Westlaw or LexisNexis have a lot more than just the case; most importantly, they list citations to the case. Your local public law library might have a terminal for one of the services that you can walk in and use. Be sure you're reading the actual case, not a summary or "annotation." This is especially true if you're writing an answer here on Law.SE. Many case summaries, especially for famous cases, are written for first-year law students; some of them are probably written by first-year law students! They're often helpful, but they focus on what the student needs to know for class, which often isn't what the case actually said. If I find you quoting a case summary as if it's "the law," I will not be very nice to you.
In this case the Plaintiff, James Maloney, has previously been charged with a crime for possession of nunchucks. He is apparently suing to enjoin further enforcement of the law under which he was previously charged. US Federal courts will only take up a "case or controversy", which means an issue where actual, not theoretical rights are at stake, and in order to vindicate a constitutional right, it must either have previously been violated, or there must be a plausible and immediate threat to it. Claiming that a law is unconstitutional as part of a defense to a charge of violating that law is a common and probably the best known method of challenging a law (or a government action) for unconstitutionality. But there are other ways. One way is to apply for an injunction against enforcement of the law. That is the procedure that was followed in, for example, the recent case where there was a ruling against the ADA in a district court. In order to use that procedure, the plaintiff must present evidence that there is a credible threat that the law will be invoked against him (or her) if the action which the plaintiff claims is protected by a constitutional right is taken. In short, one need not put oneself in a position where one goes to prison or is found guilty of a crime if one loses the case to challenge the constitutionality of a law or of a government policy or action. But one must establish that it is a real "case or controversy", with real parties in opposition to each other, and real rights at stake, not a mere law student's exercise, nor a collusive case, with both "sides" having the same actual goal. In the case reported, the previous criminal charge helps to establish that this is a real issue.
Not only would it not be unethical to argue both sides of the issue, if the lawyer argued both sides of the issue and won on both sides, this would be proof that the lawyer is an excellent lawyer. Because the victory would be based on the lawyers skills and not on whether the law leans one way or the other. Speaking of ethics, I believe it would be unethical for a lawyer not to argue on behalf of one of his clients. A lawyer is required to represent each one of his clients zealously. If this means the lawyer has to argue both sides of an issue, as long as there is no conflict of interest between his two clients, then the lawyer must do so. Our system is an adversarial system. The system is designed to get a just result by having each side argue their own position in an adversarial setting. This means that the opposing lawyer could argue that the first lawyer is arguing both sides of the issue in different cases. However I believe a good judge would find that lawyer's argument to be irrelevant. Because the only arguments that are relevant would be the arguments based on the law and the facts of each individual case. In other words it would not be relevant for the opposing lawyer to argue that this lawyer frequently argues both sides of the case. As long as he is not doing so in this one specific case.
There are cases out there like Unnamed Petitioners v. Connors, State v. Unnamed Defendant, Williams v. Unnamed Defendant; there have been indictments of John Doe who was only identified via a DNA profile. Not knowing the actual name of a person wouldn't pose a problem per se, and it seems that when the name is not known, John or Jane Doe is generally filled in. There was in instance a year ago in the UK where rioters who refused to identify themselves, and prosecution decided to drop the case.
In Civil Cases Petitions, Complaints, And Suits Suits The term &quot;suit&quot; is uncommon and verges on colloquial. It is a shortened version of the term &quot;lawsuit&quot; a.k.a. civl action a.k.a. court case. The term &quot;lawsuit&quot; refers to the entire case that is initiated by a Petition or a Complaint, rather than just a single document. The term &quot;lawsuit&quot; excludes court cases that are criminal and brought in the name of &quot;The People.&quot; When one &quot;files a lawsuit&quot; or &quot;files suit&quot; one initiates a court case by filing a Complaint or a Petition with a court.* In some circumstances, a lawsuit is commenced by delivering the Petition or Complaint and other documents to another party to the case first, an action called &quot;service of process&quot; and then filing it with the court, while in most cases, filing the Petition or Complaint with the court comes first and service of process comes second. Petitions v. Complaints A Petition and a Complaint are each documents used to initiate a civil action (sometimes called a lawsuit or a court case) seeking some kind of relief from a court. For all practical purposes, the differences between Complaints and Petitions is purely stylistic and a matter of custom and history. Normally there is a filing fee for filing a Petition or Complaint. When a court case is commenced with a Complaint, the document that someone who is sued must file is called an &quot;Answer&quot;. When a court cases is commenced with a Petition, the document that someone who is a party to the case must file to dispute that the relief requested in the Petition be granted is called a &quot;Response&quot; or an &quot;Objection&quot;. When Is Complaint v. Petition Terminology Used Roughly speaking, the initial document is almost always called (in U.S. practice at least) a &quot;Complaint&quot; in contexts where the primary relief sought would have been for causes of action brought in courts of law in the English common law system before the merger of law courts and equity courts a.k.a. courts of chancery. See generally, this Law.SE answer. For example, the document initiating a lawsuit (a.k.a. civil action) for breach of contract, or for money damages in tort (e.g. a personal injury lawsuit), are almost always described as a &quot;Complaint.&quot; The term &quot;Petition&quot; is most often used to describe an initial document seeking relief from a court in particular kinds of cases associated with historical equity relief and often don't seek money damages or don't have a clear winner or loser. Petitions are used, for example, to initiate a probate case, a guardianship or conservatorship case, a bankruptcy case, a divorce case, a request to change your name, or a case seeking to incorporate a municipality or special district. It is also customary to call an initial document seeking relief from a court a &quot;Petition&quot; when the relief sought is a &quot;Writ&quot;. So, for example, one files a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. A &quot;Writ&quot; is a court order directed to someone who is not a party to a lawsuit directing that person (usually, but not always, a government official) to do something. Notwithstanding this general rule, however, in cases seeking money damages, possession of real estate (i.e. evictions), and possession of specific items of personal property (a.k.a. &quot;replevin&quot; actions or &quot;claim and delivery&quot; actions), cases are generally initiated with a document entitled a &quot;Complaint&quot; even though some of the post-judgment relief awarded will consist of writs (e.g. a writ of garnishment or a writ of execution in a case seeking a money judgment, a writ of restitution in a case seeking possession of real property, and writs of attachment and writs of assistance in cases seeking possession of personal property). In some kinds of cases, such as lawsuits to quiet title to real property, or lawsuits alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, the initiating document is sometimes called a &quot;Complaint&quot; and sometimes called a &quot;Petition&quot; in an inconsistent manner. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls the document used to initiate a civil action a &quot;Complaint&quot; and many state rules of civil procedure follow the lead of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In those jurisdictions, the term &quot;Petition&quot; is often used to refer to court cases that aren't governed by the ordinary rules of civil procedure. But this distinction isn't followed strictly. Some kinds of Petitions and Motions that initiate civil actions are still governed in whole or in part by the ordinary Rules of Civil Procedure. Application v. Petition Also, sometimes the word &quot;Application&quot; is used in lieu of the word &quot;Petition&quot;, in part, because it is seen by reformers as a more &quot;plain English&quot; and less technical word than &quot;Petition&quot;. The term &quot;Application&quot; rather than &quot;Petition&quot; is also sometimes used, in part, to avoid confusion with the more general non-legal sense of the word &quot;Petition&quot; to mean an request made outside the legal system to a public official or other individual requesting that they do something, or a document signed by numerous people seeking to allow a candidate to run for office or allowing a citizen's initiative to be placed on the ballot in an election, for example. Motions The General Rule A &quot;Motion&quot; predominantly refers to an oral request or written request made to a court requesting that the court do something during the course of a civil action a.k.a. lawsuit a.k.a. court case after the case was initiated with a Complaint or a Petition. Motions don't necessarily have to be filed by parties to the case, even though motions are usually filed by parties to cases. For example, a non-party to a case could file a &quot;Motion to Intervene&quot; to be made a party to the case, or could file a &quot;Motion to Quash&quot; or a &quot;Motion for Protective Order&quot; to seek to limited the scope of, or invalidate, a subpoena served upon a non-party. Motion are filed, for example, seeking to add a party, to dismiss a case, to amend a document previously filed in the case, for an extension of time to do something, to exclude evidence at an upcoming trial or hearing, to convert a case from a jury trial case to a non-jury trial case, to change a trial date, or any manner of other things that require court action. Requests for post-judgment relief in an existing case and post-judgment litigation of custody and child support matters in divorce cases are also called Motions. A court filing that doesn't ask a court to do something is often called a &quot;notice&quot; or &quot;status report&quot; or &quot;return&quot; (a &quot;return&quot; is a report to the court that something that should have happened in a court supervised process actually happened). Other terms are used as well. Normally, there is not a filing fee for filing a Motion in an existing case. Motions That Start Court Cases But because the law is not entirely consistent in its terminology, the term &quot;Motion&quot; is in rare instances used to refer to a document used instead to initiate a new court case concerning a very narrow special proceeding in a court. For example, in Colorado, where I practice, some of the court cases that are initiated by a Motion include: A Motion to Compel or Stay an Arbitration proceeding. A Motion to Confirm, Vacate, or Modify an Arbitration Award. A Motion to Compel a legal entity to turn over its records to one of its owners. A Motion to authorize an otherwise public trustee foreclosure of deed of trust for real property to go forward. A Motion to have a money judgment entered in another state recognized in the state where the Motion is filed. The basic notion is that in the kind of court cases initiated by a Motion rather than a Petition or a Complaint, the intent is that the entire court case should involve a procedural process similar to the process of resolving a single isolated motion within a larger court case, as opposed to the full legal process involved in an entire court case initiated by a Complaint or a Petition. Another term used to initiate a court case, often a limited special proceeding without involving the procedural incidents of a full fledged civil lawsuit is an &quot;application.&quot; Normally there is a filing fee for filing a Motion that initiates a new court case. In Criminal Cases Criminal Cases Are Not Lawsuits The term &quot;suit&quot; or &quot;lawsuit&quot; is normally reserved for civil cases and is not used to refer to criminal cases brought in the name of &quot;The People&quot;. Often a criminal case brought in the name of &quot;The People&quot; is called a &quot;Prosecution&quot;. Motions The term &quot;Motion&quot; is used the same way in criminal cases as it is in civil cases. As in civil cases, the term Motions is used for post-verdict fillings requesting relief from a court in existing criminal cases, such as a Motion to Seal a record in an existing criminal case, or a Motion to set aside a verdict after it is entered. Also, as in civil cases, there are some criminal cases that can be initiated via a &quot;Motion&quot; which are generally narrow special proceedings intended to be adjudicated with the procedural trappings of a motion filed in another case rather than the procedural trappings associated with a full fledged criminal case. Sometimes these filings to initiate new special proceedings in criminal cases are called &quot;applications&quot; rather than &quot;motions&quot;. For example, a request to a court to issue a criminal search warrant would often be called a &quot;Motion for Issuance Of A Search Warrant&quot; or an &quot;Application For A Search Warrant.&quot; Petitions In criminal practice, the term &quot;Petition&quot; is normally reserved for an application for a Writ, such as a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, or a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. Complaints v. Indictments In Criminal Cases Criminal law practice uses the term &quot;Complaint&quot; differently than in civil practice, however. In criminal law practice, the key distinction is between a &quot;Complaint&quot; which is a document commencing a criminal prosecution against a criminal defendant filed by a prosecutor (or where the law authorizes it, by a non-lawyer such as a police officer or crime victim), and an &quot;Indictment&quot; which is a document commencing a criminal prosecution against a criminal defendant issued by a grand jury. A document initiating a criminal prosecution without using a grand jury is also sometimes called an &quot;information&quot; or a &quot;complaint and information&quot;. (N.B. the State of Colorado is misclassified in the map above and does not exclusively use grand jury indictments to commence felony cases. It should be blue and not gray in the map above.) Serious crimes prosecuted in federal courts, and in some (mostly Eastern U.S.) states have to be commenced with an indictment rather than a complaint. In most states (mostly in the Western U.S.), however, a prosecutor can initiate almost any kind of criminal case with a Complaint, and criminal cases initiated by grand jury indictments are the rare exception reserved mostly for organized crime cases, cases involving politicians or with political implications, and cases against law enforcement officers. Generally speaking, in criminal cases commenced by an indictment, there is no right to a preliminary hearing to determine if the criminal charges are supported by probably cause before a judge, while there is generally a right to a preliminary hearing for that purpose before a judge in most serious criminal cases commenced with a criminal complaint.
The only way in which you could be &quot;incorrectly listed as a defendant&quot; is if somehow your name was typed in as a party (there would be a glaring gap, that no paragraph of the complaint says anything about you as a defendant). Assuming the situation is nothing so bizarre as a typo, you are a defendant. Whether or not you are liable in this case is a matter of fact and law, and the plaintiff's attorney has probably done due diligence in suing everybody imaginable. Perhaps the plaintiff lied to his attorney about material facts (read the complaint); or perhaps there is a credible legal theory under which you would be liable (read the complaint). Your attorney will take care of your problems, to the best of his ability. He may be able to persuade the plaintiff's attorney that they stand no realistic hope of winning and some chance of getting smacked for pointlessly involving you. If the plaintiff's attorney isn't persuaded by the argument, your attorney could submit the legal arguments as a motion to dismiss. If the judge is not persuaded (at this stage), you (your attorney) will have to counter the arguments presented at trial.