O.J. Simpson, the new knife, and criminal vs. civil trials

O.J. Simpson, the new knife, and criminal vs. civil trialsIt’s hard to believe that a murder from 1994 is still making headlines, but the O.J. Simpson case was like none other. Nearly twenty years after Simpson was acquitted, a knife found on his property resurfaced and was examined by the LAPD to see if it could be the missing murder weapon. Although reports came back showing that it was highly unlikely to be the same blade used to kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, the public was just as fascinated as ever by the gruesome murders.

Of course, people have always been obsessed by tales of unsolved murders, old and new. Some of the most popular podcasts and miniseries right now are based on true crimes, like “Serial” and the TV series, “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story.” And if you remember watching the O.J. Simpson trial when it first happened, you probably remember the long-running TV shows, “Unsolved Mysteries” and “America’s Most Wanted.”

In fact, there is a lot you can learn from the O.J. Simpson case about how the California criminal justice system works.

Double Jeopardy

Even if the new knife had seemed like an exact match for the murder weapon, Simpson can’t be tried for the murders again—that would be double jeopardy. Both the United States Constitution and the California State Constitution protect citizens against double jeopardy, which means that if you are tried in court and are found not guilty, you can’t be tried for the same crime again.

But do you remember that Simpson actually was tried twice for Nicole’s death? The jury even found him guilty in the second case. The difference is that the second trial was for a civil case for wrongful death. Protection from double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases for the same criminal charges.

What’s the difference between a criminal and a civil case?

Although the underlying situation was the same—the death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman—the criminal and the civil cases against Simpson called for justice in two very different ways.

In a criminal case, the government brings the case on behalf of the victim and accuses the defendant of committing a crime. The punishment is typically jail time or a fine.

With a civil case, if someone caused a problem for you but it’s not quite a criminal offense, you’ll have to pay to hire your own attorney and bring the case to court yourself. Instead of jail, you can ask the court to make the defendant pay money or to fix the problem, if possible. If you win, the defendant might only have to pay back the actual amount of money they owe, or the jury might also award “punitive damages” just to punish the defendant.

Standard of proof

The state had already had their shot at proving Simpson guilty of first degree murder. The prosecution had to convince the jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he was guilty of the crime—but the jury didn’t buy it. In the civil case, the families of the alleged victims accused Simpson of causing the “wrongful death” of their loved ones. In a civil case, the standard of proof is lower—you only have to convince a jury that it was more likely than not that the defendant was responsible (a “preponderance of the evidence”). The jury in the civil case decided the victims’ families met that standard of proof. The families couldn’t ask for imprisonment, but they won $25 million in punitive damages.

Looking for more info?

If you’re still curious about the Simpson case, click here to read more about how forensic science played a part in the murder trial.

If you or a loved one are facing murder or other criminal charges in Southern California, contact top criminal defense attorney Dan E. Chambers with any questions. Schedule your free case evaluation today by calling 714-760-4088, emailing dchambers@clfca.com, or sending an online message via the Chat box at the bottom right of this page.

.
Call Us Today