[Mr. K]

That may be 100% correct, but I believe it still makes my point.

If I commit a crime and the victim sues me in civil court, I can understand that civil case being put on hold until the criminal court gets done.

Not the other way around.

I would never expect the criminal court to defer prosecution, and make a deal with me to avoid prosecution, in deference to my civil case.

[Alberta's Child]

If I commit a crime and the victim sues me in civil court, I can understand that civil case being put on hold until the criminal court gets done.

That's exactly right. The Fifth Amendment protects someone in both criminal and civil courts, but the civil case should have been deferred because this sort of thing weighs very heavily in a civil court.

A few years ago I worked for a client who won a civil case because the defendant was placed in a position of jeopardy due to a potential criminal aspect of the case. Basically, the defendant had to concede the civil case by testifying, in effect: "I admit that I was liable in this case, but I wasn't a criminal. I was just an 'effing moron."

[Alberta's Child]

I would never expect the criminal court to defer prosecution, and make a deal with me to avoid prosecution, in deference to my civil case.

This is the stupid can of worms many states opened when they extended -- or even eliminated -- the statutes of limitations for sex abuse cases.