Question

A jury found Orenthal James "O.J." Simpson not guilty of murder in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman on October 3, 1995. On February 4, 1997, a jury found Simpson responsible for both deaths and awarded the Brown and Goldman families $33.5 million in damages. How is this possible? Was the second trial a retrial of the first? If not, what is the relationship if any between the two proceedings? Isn't it double jeopardy if someone is tried twice for the same actions?

Answer 1

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY:

It is possible to be held both criminally liable and civilly liable, if your act was both a crime and a tort. Therefore, for example, a rapist could be found criminally guilty for rape and be sued for the tort of “battery”. In practice it doesn’t happen that often, because most criminal defendants don’t have much money, especially after a criminal trial.

If you are found guilty in a criminal trial, then it will make the civil plaintiff’s case much easier, as that fact will be binding in the criminal trial (though you would still have to prove damages).

If you are found not guilty in a criminal trial, you can't take advantage of the criminal verdict in the civil case, for two reasons. First, the criminal verdict simply shows that there was at least reasonable doubt about whether you were guilty. That doesn't stop the plaintiff from proving your guilt by a preponderance of the evidence (the standard usually required for civil liability) or even by clear and convincing evidence (the standard generally required for punitive damages in civil cases).

CRIMINAL TRAIL:

• the prosecution had to prove Simpson committed the murders "beyond a reasonable doubt”
• the jurors had to be unanimous in their decision
• Simpson did not have to testify (though he could have if he’d wanted to) – jurors were not allowed to hold his decision to remain silent against him
• if found guilty, he would have received a prison sentence

CIVIL TRAIL:

• the plaintiff -- in this case the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman – had to prove Simpson committed the murders by a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. more than 50% chance he did it)
• to get punitive damages, the plaintiffs had to establish “clear and convincing evidence” (higher standard)
• only 9 of 12 jurors had to agree
• Simpson was compelled to testify
• if found liable, he would have to pay damages (which he was - $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages).