20 years ago, OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil case for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman and the battery of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson.
I have found a few articles talking about some of the differences between the civil case and the criminal trial, but not a comprehensive assessment or any explanation of what the key differences were. I’m aware that Mark Furhman was not called to testify, but conversely OJ Simpson was subpoenaed and had to testify. Couldn’t OJ’s team have called Furhman? Or referred to his evidence in the criminal case?
The “prosecution” in the civil case had more time to prepare their case and fix the problems in the criminal prosecution, and there is also a lower burden of proof in civil cases. Are these differences enough to explain the different verdict? Or were other factors in play? Did any of the differences work to OJ’s advantage or did they all work to the prosecution’s advantage?
The civil case was not televised - did that mean that the case had a much lower profile than the earlier criminal trial? What did people know about the civil case?
Finally, was the civil liability verdict expected? Or did everyone think that because OJ had been acquitted on the criminal charges that he would escape civil liability?
Any information on the civil case would be much appreciated.
Many thanks.
EDIT: I realise the title says 20 years ago today. I messed up the dates - the civil verdict was on 5 February 1997 and not on 2 May 1997. Blame US/UK date formats!
One thing that is very important to know is that in the United States there is a different burden of proof for criminal cases and civil cases. In a criminal case, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused is guilty. This is often expressed (somewhat inaccurately) as "95% certainty" for the purposes of simple explanation. In a civil case however, the standard is much lower. In a civil case, the plaintiff only needs to prove their case by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, or in other words show that it is more likely than not that the defendant is liable. This is often (though somewhat inaccurately) explained as "51% certainty".
As such, it is fairly common in the United States for someone to be found not guilty in criminal court, but to be civilly liable for damages, even if the evidence has not changed between the two cases, because of these differing legal standards. Someone else can talk about the specifics of the OJ Simpson case, but right off the bat it is important to recognize that the legal burdens of proof for the two cases were very different, as one was a criminal case and one was a civil case.