> If you take away that assumption, then what would be your argument? The argument is that the civil and criminal proceedings are considering largely similar s

> If you take away that assumption, then what would be your argument? The argument is that the civil and criminal proceedings are considering largely similar statements of fact. The burden of proof is lower in the civil case, of course, but the facts under consideration are the same. Or course, slightly different exact statements are being considered but with a substantively similar underlying truth claim: theranos was a fraud. The real point is, it's hard to believe she would ever win the criminal proceedings and lose the civil proceedings. To me, it would make sense for the courts to insist that the civil proceeding is resolved first when the criminal proceeding is considering largely the same statements of fact but with a higher burden of proof. Why? Because the people the criminal code is supposed to be protecting are largely the same people who are suing, and those folks would probably prefer getting some money back. The problem is that this would probably violate the sixth amendment (as is mentioned in my initial post). So, again, constitutionally, I understand why. This just seems like a bug rather than a feature. So, this isn't about "innocent until proven guilty". This is about "speedy trial". I think one possibility, moving forward, is the following workflow: 1. Federal prosecutors communicate intent to prosecute, and provide a list of victims purportedly effected 2. Any effected victims may file civil suits 2a. Judges/congress/state legislative bodies exempt commitments to defense funds for future possible criminal cases from bankruptcy 3. civil cases resolved 4. criminal charges filed and proceedings begin We test the limits of every amendment that applies to non-corporate-executives, so why not the sixth in fraud proceedings against C suites as well?