My understanding is that there is no difference between causation in civil and criminal. Causation is Causation, proximat and in-fact. BUT, the standards of proof are very different. In a civil trial, if causation is the issue in the case, would the Plaintiff have to prove causation by a preponderance of evidence; in criminal, would the prosecutor have to prove causation beyone a reasonable doubt? I'm not sure, but suppose so. Probably this is a very law school question and not a practicing lawyer one, but nonetheless, a good question. What do you think?