Homicide and Wrongful Death Allegations: Against Simpson - Essay Example

Academia-Research Why was OJ Simpson found not guilty in the criminal proceedings, and found liable in the civil proceedings Disparate outcomes in similar criminal and civil proceedings: homicide and wrongful death allegations lodged against O. J. Simpson and their respective outcomes INTRODUCTION In June 1994, former National Football League (NFL) star and television personality Orenthal James (O. J.) Simpson was charged by California authorities with two counts of first-degree (premeditated) murder in the stabbing deaths of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. The crimes occurred in Los Angeles. A few weeks later, Simpson was bound over for trial. At about the same time, Goldman’s mother filed a civil suit against Simpson, alleging wrongful death in the case of her son. After a criminal proceeding generally considered to have been poorly administered by the presiding judge (Lance Ito), and despite the introduction of considerable forensic and circumstantial evidence pointing to the defendant’s guilt, Simpson was acquitted in October 1995. However, in the civil trial alleging wrongful death and concluded in February 1997, the verdict was otherwise. This disparity in results has raised a number of questions concerning such matters as actual guilt, double jeopardy, and the like. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is on the state. “The state [or ‘prosecution’] must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent; [and therefore] the defendant needs to prove nothing… [Furthermore,] in criminal litigation, the state must prove that the defendant satisfied each element of the statutory definition of the crime, and the defendant’s participation, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ [Standler, 2002].” Conversely, in civil litigation, while the initial burden of proof, as in criminal cases, falls to the plaintiff (paralleling the prosecution in a criminal proceeding), “when the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to refute or rebut the plaintiff’s evidence [Standler, 2002].” Equally important, in civil proceedings the requirement that the jury be convinced ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is replaced by a jury’s collective satisfaction that the ‘preponderance of evidence’ points to the defendant’s guilt or negligence. In California, no one may be convicted in a jury trial criminal proceeding (vice trial by presiding judge alone), except in those instances when the jury is unanimously agreed on the defendant’s guilt. Conversely, in civil proceedings, the plaintiff prevails if nine or more of the twelve jurors concur in the defendant’s guilt or negligence. Since no formal punishment attaches to conviction in a civil proceedings, matters at issue that have been resolved in prior criminal proceedings do not implicate Constitutional prohibitions concerning double jeopardy. (However, while double jeopardy only applies in criminal proceedings, there is in civil litigation the principle of res judicata, establishing that one “can have only one trial for claims arising from one transaction or occurrence [Standler, 2002].” Finally, in civil proceedings, under certain circumstances, the defendant must actually provide assistance to the plaintiff. “In other words, the defendant in a civil case must help his/her opponent collect evidence that will defeat the defendant. And, at trial, if a party invokes Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, then the judge will instruct the jury that they may make an adverse inference against the party who refused to testify [Standler, 2002].” In criminal proceedings, the defendant may refuse to testify and the jury is invariably instructed that it may infer nothing from such refusal. THE SIMPSON CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS It is generally agreed that the Simpson trial had at least some of the attributes of a theatrical production. The defense team, led by legendary trial lawyer Johnny Cochran, made every effort to shift to onus away from his client and onto the Los Angeles Police Department. Homicide investigator Mark Fuhrman, already a somewhat controversial figure in the Department because of his ties to Hollywood crime fiction screenwriters, was accused by Cochran of racial bias, based on Fuhrman’s recorded use of racial epithets. Two of these recordings were made available to the jury and, thereafter, Cochran inferred that they pointed to a prospective incentive on the part of Fuhrman to ‘plant’ evidence likely to indicate Simpson’s guilt. (Out of the jury’s presence, Fuhrman invoked Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination when confronted with evidence regarding possible racial bias after having denied using a certain epithet during the preceding decade. While the jury was not informed of Fuhrman’s invoking his rights against self-incrimination, Judge Ito agreed that the jury could be informed that the police officer would no longer be ‘available,’ thus pointing obliquely to possible misrepresentation while under oath. There is considerable exiguous evidence that Los Angeles’ black community in general—and, if follows, the jurors selected from that community—was disposed to believe that police officers investigating the Simpson-Goldman homicides might misbehaved in the treatment of forensic evidence. According to Thagard, Simpson’s attorneys “were very effective in offering alternative explanations of the blood evidence using the hypothesis that the LAPD had planted evidence. The glove that Simpson had supposedly used in the murder did not appear to fit his hand when he tried to put it on in court. Blood had not been noticed on the sock until weeks after it had been held by the police. The blood on the glove and sock showed traces of EDTA, a chemical used as an anti-coagulant in samples taken from O. J. Simpson and Ron Goldman. Fuhrman and other detectives had ample opportunity to plant the evidence that implicated Simpson, and Fuhrman had a racist motivation to do so [Why wasn’t O J convicted? October 2000].” After alternative jurors were dismissed, the jury ended up being composed of nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites (10 women and 2 men). During the course of the trial, black jurors on one occasion refused to hear testimony until three of their security guards were reassigned. The jurors in question stated that white jurors were receiving preferential treatment. Judge Ito acquiesced to their demands. While this contretemps was hardly of major significance, it pointed both to the racially charged atmosphere in the trial and to the prospective sensitivity of jurors to that charged atmosphere. (Interestingly, Thagard identifies a number of counterintuitive aspects of popular black thinking, perceptions that would work to the Simpson defense effort. Simpson’s lawyers found “that virtually every middle-aged African-American woman in the focus group supported Simpson and resented the murder victim. Accordingly, the defense team set out to get as many black, middle-aged women on the jury as possible. Further polling found that only 3 per cent of 200 African-Americans assumed that Simpson was guilty, and 44 per cent said that Los Angeles police had treated them unfairly at least once. Most strikingly, 49 per cent of divorced black women wanted to see Simpson acquitted. The defense was elated when juror selection produced a jury that included 8 blacks, most of them middle-aged women [Why wasn’t O J convicted? October 2000].”) As events eventually unfolded, the jury deliberated for only four hours before returning with a verdict of not guilty on all counts. Making the case for police misbehavior—essentially, arguing that the criminal proceedings grew out of ‘framing’ the accused—and what would amount to a consequent jury nullification of that misbehavior, while certainly not an exercise in futility, largely rests on the uncomfortably large number of administrative miscues. Simply stated, the case for the prosecution rested on a number of ‘untidy’ procedural acts preceding the trial. Thus, for example, the belated discovery of blood on the sock and traces of the anticoagulant EDTA in blood samples taken from the victims could be interpreted as evidence of police tampering intended to further incriminate the accused. THE SIMPSON CIVIL PROCEEDINGS Unlike the criminal proceeding, the plaintiffs in the wrong death proceeding needed only show that Simpson was legally responsible for Goldman’s death. (A ‘survivor’ suit in behalf of Nicole Simpson was filed by the Brown family.) During this proceeding, Simpson took the stand in his own defense. “Juror’s judgments of Simpson’s performance were a key factor in the jury finding him liable. The credibility of his entire testimony was called into question. Note that most opinion polls taken after Simpson took the stand showed many people found his spousal abuse denial [which had resulted in several police visits in response to ‘911 calls’ during the Simpson marriage] quite incredible [Decision Quest, 2007].” As in the criminal trial, the racial composition of the jury may have been a factor, albeit this time in favor of the plaintiffs. Unlike the earlier trial, the civil proceeding jury was composed of nine whites, one black, one Hispanic, and one Asian [Court TV, 2007]. Unlike the criminal case, the civil jury was more deliberate, considering the evidence for six days before coming to a decision. To what extent racial factors were present is problematical. However, as described supra, only nine affirmative votes of the twelve jurors were required to find for the plaintiff. The jury awarded the Goldman family $8.5 million, with an additional punitive damages award of $25 million to be shared equally by the Goldman family and Simpson’s two surviving children. FINAL THOUGHTS Much of the civil effort, whether merited or not, may come to naught. Simpson’s primary asset is his NFL pension, estimated at $4 million. While earnings and assets may usually be seized to satisfy civil awards, under Florida law—Simpson is now a resident of Florida and his pension is protected under Florida law—the income from that asset (about $20,000 per month) is inviolable. Other Simpson assets had already been seized by the Federal government for back taxes. It is very doubtful that any of the plaintiffs, however successful they were in court, will see any substantial portion of the moneys owed them. Works consulted in the preparation of this report Caplan, B., The preponderance of the evidence: reflections on just criminal proceedings, George Mason University/School of Law, 2001 Justice for the dead, Court TV/Crime Library, 2007 Standler, R. B., Differences between civil and criminal law in the USA, Self-published report, October 19, 2002 [updated] Thagard, P., Why wasn’t O J convicted?—emotional coherence in legal inference, University of Waterloo [CA]/Department of philosophy, October 2000 The O. J. Simpson civil jury: jury deliberations in a wrongful death case, Decision Quest, 2007 What is the difference between a civil and criminal conviction? Criminal Lawyers and Procedure, Nolo, 2007 Read More