My understanding of the difference between the two is that, in the first trial, they placed him at the crime scene after the attack had been committed and tried to prove that meant he did it. They failed. In the second trial, however, they placed him at the crime scene after the attack had been committed and tried to prove that he did nothing to help the victims–didn’t call 911, didn’t apply any kind of first aid. They won.
The problem I see with your example, is that in your example, there is no doubt that Smith was ‘responsible’ in some manner, maybe not criminally, but his car + he was driving.
In the OJ case, there was no such evidence - just conjecture. (Had there been evidence, he would’ve been convicted of the criminal charges).
Now, my memory is vague - was there evidence available to the civil court that was not available to the criminal court that proved that OJ was ‘responsible’?
You are under the impression that a trial is to seek the truth. A trial is to prosecute who the district attorney or grand jury THINK is guilty.
We also have the myth of an impartial jury. This isn’t possible in today’s society. What you have is 12 people who have made up their mind BUT ARE WILLING to change it if the prosecution or defense can convince them to.
As for the differing verdicts, it depends on venue, you can have the same exact trial and two juries reach totally different verdicts.
Our system of “justice” is set up to purposely divide repsonsibility. Look at everytime someone found guilty is found to be innocent. The DA says “Not my fault, I was just doing my job. The grand jury indicted him.” The juries say they were only one of so many. The defense attorney says he did his best with limited resources.
No one is held accountable a better standard.
It’s disheartening that everyone says “the system broke,” but it’s the best we got. Well why doesn’t someone fix it? This is a product of Congress being mostly lawyers, they have no idea how anyone who isn’t a lawyer thinks.
Here’s one way of looking at the difference between the civil and criminal standards that may help explain the seemingly inconsistent verdicts.
The burden of proof in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In a civil case, it’s “preponderance of the evidence.” Let’s change those into numbers–call the first one 95% certainty and the second 51% certainty.
Now, let’s say that the exact same evidence was presented in both cases and both juries came to the exact same conclusion: they were 75% sure that OJ did it.
The criminal jury should return a not guilty verdict, because they are only 75% sure–less than the 95% sure they need to be to come back with a guilty verdict.
The civil jury should find him liable, because they are 75% sure–well in excess of the 51% standard.
Now of course, the standards don’t really correspond to numerical values, and the evidence presented at the two trials was not exactly the same.
Others have explained why the subsequent civil trial does not invoke double jeopardy. I’ll just add that many states have statutes that say that a conviction in the criminal case can be used as proof of the civil case, but obviously not vice versa. And a not guilty in the criminal case is not evidence in his favor at the civil trial.
Oh, and there’s no such verdict as “innocent”. Just “guilty” or “not guilty.”.
(Sorry, pet peeve of mine)
I should have thought life the most basic civil right of all, the absence of which makes all other civil rights meaningless. But that’s just my instinct, I don’t know how, or indeed if, the Constitution defines civil right.
Your memory is incorrect. There was a great deal of evidence presented in OJ’s criminal trial. What do you think the prosecution was doing for 23 weeks if not presenting evidence that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered?
Your parenthetical is completely off the mark. The presence or absence doesn’t determine a conviction, the jury’s perceptions about the evidence they’ve been presented does. More than one jury has acquitted a person against whom the prosecution has far more evidence than any perp on Law & Order.
Slight hijack:
This is one of those thing that “everyone knows” is true but isn’t really true. In the 110[sup]th[/sup] Congress (the one that ends this January), law is the most common profession of Senators, but not overwhelmingly. In the House of Representatives, public service (including things such as former mayors, former state legislators, former Cabinet members, and even former First Ladies[sup]*[/sup]) is the dominant profession of Congresspersons.
Overall, Congress is about evenly split between those that list their profession as law and those that list their profession as public service (215 and 202, respectively). There are a further 189 Members that list their profession as Business and 96 that list education, so Congress is not “mostly” lawyers. It is, rather, 30% lawyers.
[sup]*[/sup]And no, that doesn’t make them just like lawyers. It is possible to go into politics without attending law school or thinking like a lawyer.
I was comparing/contrasting the evidence as proposed by Polycarp’s scenario - there was not conclusive evidence that OJ ‘did it’ (he wasnt apprehended at the scene, etc…) there was only ‘circumstantial’ evidence that the Prosecution attempted to use to prove it’s case… and the prosecution failed.*
What I was asking was, what specific evidence was introduced in the civil trial that made him liabal that was not introduced in the criminal proceedings? (and I think that Ethilrist answered that question for me.
*I am not arguing OJ’s case, or the evidence there-in. I have a hard time with the fact that some one can be found liable for acts ‘they did not commit’ - especailly when the defendant is found ‘not guilty’ of the act. I can fully understand ‘wrongful death’ suits where negligence led to it, but not as a “second” chance to call someone a ‘murderer’ (in cases where it was a clear murder, and not ‘accidental’ in nature).
But you’re still getting hung up on distinguishing Polycarp’s “conclusive” evidence from the evidence presented in OJ’s case. There is no such thing as “conclusive” evidence until a jury decides bases their conclusion on it. The prosecution thought there was conclusive evidence in the murder trial, certainly.
You’re also getting hung up on thinking that the murder trial jury somehow officially said: “OJ didn’t do it.” They did not. They said instead, “The prosection has not proved to our satisfaction that OJ did it.”
These are two very different things. A number of jurors have since said publicly that they think OJ probably did kill Brown and Goldman, in fact. Thinking is not the same as proving, though.
I understand your points, quite clearly - however, I was still not debating OJ’s specifics, only the specifics of Polycarps example…
Polycarp’s evidence is different - he was not guilty of the criminal bits, but quite obviously liable for damages.
In OJ’s case - he was not guilty of murder - how can he then be liable for thier deaths? It wasn’t proven that he caused thier deaths or injuries - that is why I have a hard time with wrongful death suits of this type. Proving to a jury that you “really, really think” he is liable should not be sufficient.
A better example would be a DUI involved fatality - where, for whatever reason, the DUI driver was found ‘not guilty’ of homicide, but due to the fact that he was the driver at the time, he could still be held liable for “wrongful death” and other 'damages".
I have no issue with that scenario.
IANAL, but I do have some thoughts:
TheFifthYear and Guinastasia are right on point (among others).
As they note,
- A criminal jury finds people “not guilty.” It doesn’t find them “innocent.”
The result of OJ’s criminal trial was that, as you yourself say, “It wasn’t proven that he caused thier deaths or injuries” - more importantly, the evidence offered in each trial is separate. There is no one set of “evidence”-there’s the evidence presented in the first trial, and the evidence in the second.
It would be wrong for the jury in the second trial to consider evidence admitted in the first trial, but not in the second. (if the second lawyer thought it was just confusing).
Similarly, it would be wrong not to consider evidence admitted in the second trial just because it wasn’t admitted in the first trial.
Hence, even if you had the same standard of proof in civil and criminal suits, then it might be entirely reasonable for one trial to acquit and the other to find liable-it’s a reflection of the quality of the lawyers, their ability to find evidence, and the tactical decisions they make about what evidence to present.
Simple example: the criminal trial leads to an acquittal. Then, however, the defendant writes a book admitting he did it. Let’s call it “If I did it.” Because he thinks the laws don’t apply to him, he puts in a video he took of the killing.
Now he gets sued, but in the second trial, the jury gets to see the videotape. They convict.
That is eminently sensible.
We have double jeopardy to prevent against two criminal trials-but that only protects against two prosecutions by the same entity-in OJ’s case, one was brought by California, and the other by the Goldmans. Can’t be double jeopardy.
- Further, there are different standards of proof. So even on the same evidence, as many have noted, you might say someone isnt’ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is more likely than not that he did it. Similarly, all the criminal jury said was “on the standard for a criminal trial, and the evidence presented in this trial, OJ hasn’t been proven to have done it”
You say that “Proving to a jury that you “really, really think” he is liable should not be sufficient.”
—First, of course, our legal system does have different standards of proof. Note that it’s not “really really think he did it”, but that proving that there is evidence that makes the jury conclude he did it-doesn’t matter what the plaintiff thinks, matters what he proves to the jury.
Further, it’s eminently sensible to have different standards of proof. It depends on what we’re trying to protect most.
-The problem is we want a really stringent standard of proof in criminal trials-we can give the death penalty, put people in jail, all sorts of things that we really really don’t want to do to the wrong person.
-One argument (there are many, and I just want to show the concept) would be that in a civil trial, we’re more interested in righting wrongful injuries. The fear would then be having a situation where one person was wronged, but couldn’t meet the standard of proof needed to recover. Further, there are lots and lots of civil cases-demanding a high standard of proof would make them very hard and expensive, again making it hard for people who we think ought to get damages to do so.
This is, of course, a policy question. But I think the current system is eminently sensible.
Simply put, most murder statutes require that you killed someone intentionally, or at the least recklessly (ie, you had the idea that death would result and did it anyway.)
Wrongful Death is a charge of Negligence - by failing to do what the reasonable person would have done, you caused their death. If you are just stupider than the average bear, that is not a defense. A Wrongful Death can be as little as from a forseeable accident, all the way up to intentional homicide.
“Murder” does not mean “you caused their death” it means you caused their death AND did it with a particular state of mind (called mens rea in the law) as required by the penal code.
Sure it was. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been held liable.
You continue to miss the critical point – already explained several times in this thread – that the jury in the criminal trial didn’t (necessarily) decide anything about Simpson’s factual guilt or innocence of the murders. They found that the prosecution was not able to convince them he did it beyond a reasonable doubt – that is, to an almost certainty.
In the civil trial, neither party has such a high obligation of proof. If he probably caused their deaths, that’s enough for civil liability.
–Cliffy
While I don’t think I’m stating what I am trying to state clearly enough, I understand the points you all are making… and agree with thier applications.
Tom is loitering on the sidewalk late at night outside the home of Mary. He has a perfectly good view of Mary’s bedroom window from where he stands, provided he’s using some low-power binoculars.
Someone calls the cops and Tom is arrested. He’s charged with loitering and criminal voyeurism. At trial, Tom claims he’s not a Peeping Tom, but in fact, an avid owl lover. Evidence demonstrates his love of owls (past purchases, library records, Owl Watchers Lifetime Membership Card, etc.). A jury comes back and decides that Tom was indeed loitering, but there’s sufficient doubt that he peeping. He very well could’ve been looking for a bird (or a nocturnal 'pecker… har har). So he gets a $50 fine and warned to avoid birding near Mary’s house.
Loitering - GUILTY
Voyeurism - NOT GUILTY
Distraught over the crime, Mary seeks therapy. $5000 worth of it. She also has a lot of pain and suffering. Mary could sue Tom because he caused her this harm… even if he wasn’t a Peeping Tom. A civil trial would award Mary the $5000+ for the damage Tom caused.
If you think he was a Peeping Tom, you probably think, “Pay up, perv!”
If you think he was birding, you probably see it as him having to pay $5000+ for a crime he didn’t commit… BUT YOU’RE WRONG.
He’s not paying the $5000+ for the crime. He’s paying because his actions caused someone damages.
O.J.'s actions (or lack thereof) cause the Goldman family harm. He’s paying for that harm. He might not have murdered anyone. Maybe the LAPD pushed the victim into OJ’s knife. But the point is that OJ was able to stop the harm, but did nothing, OR, he caused the harm… but not murder. He was just looking for owls, and while looking for them, his actions were responsible for the death of Ron & Nicole.
Ok, let’s step through this slowly:
Step One: Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman are found lying in pools of blood. They are victims of homicide.
Notice I don’t say “murder” here. Murder is a specific criminal charge that requires not only dead bodies but also ( roughly) the intent by the killer to cause the death of the victims. By contrast, homicide means that a person was killed through the actions of another person rather than by, for example, disease or a lightning strike. It is entirely possible for you to kill a person without murdering them
Step Two: The State of California charges OJ with murder
Step Three: The State of California fails to prove that OJ murdered Brown and Goldman. The jury has not decided that OJ is innocent nor that OJ didn’t kill Brown and Goldman.
Step Four:The Brown and Goldman families sue OJ for depriving them of their loved ones.
They are not suing OJ for murder. They are not suing OJ for the pain and injuries OJ inflicted on Brown and Goldman. They are not suing OJ for homicide, even. Their lawsuit says, in plain language, Brown and Goldman no longer walk the earth, and that hurts us. You (OJ) have a responsibility to pay us for the pain we feel.
Step Five: The Brown and Goldman families prove that OJ has inflicted an injury on them. The jury has not decided that OJ murdered Brown and Goldman nor that the criminal trial jury got it wrong. They have been asked a different question.
Bottom line: OJ was not sued for murder or homicide or killing or any similar action. The verdicts are completely disconnected.
This could just be a result of the self-selective nature of this information and the relatively poor public image of lawyers. Hillary Clinton, for example, has a law degree from Yale and was a practicing attorney. She may choose to call herself a former First Lady but it’s equally true that she’s a former lawyer.
What puzzled me was that you could be found not guilty and then still had to pay damages., like the OP
There’s another closely related thing that I noticed : the frequent mention, by many Americans, that being found not guilty doesn’t mean that you’re innocent or should be considered innocent, including the insistence that a “not guilty” verdict just mean that the prosecution couldn’t prove your guilt, not that society at large should held you as innocent. One wouldn’t hear such a statement over here (as opposed to : “I know he has been acquitted, but I’m still sure he was he was guilty”, which is a different thing : expressing a personal opinion, not making a statement about the meaning of a “non guilty” verdict)
I’ve been wondering for some time whether this idea was just a popular widespread and meaningless “meme” or was based on a real legal concept or principle.
It is true but its significance is being overstated. One of the hallmarks of the American criminal justice system is that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.
So, although it is true that the jury finds the defendant “not guilty”, which might be rephrased as “not proven”, the fact is that the defendant is innocent unless and until the jury finds him guilty.
And none of this has any significance to a civil suit.