Was O. J. Simpson Guilty?
Email this article to a friend
O. J. Simpson was on trial for stabbing his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman to death. Was he found guilty or not guilty? That depends on which trial you’re talking about. In the criminal trial: Not Guilty. In the civil trial: Guilty. How is this possible?
Note: The information provided here is for general education only. If you need advice related to either a criminal case or a civil case, you should meet with a good local lawyer who specializes in your type of case because the laws are different in different states. Also, every lawsuit is different, so each one must be handled differently depending on the facts.
In the U.S., a person can be tried twice for the same act as long as one trial is in a criminal court and the other trial is in a civil court—and can even result in different verdicts! That’s exactly what happened to Simpson. It also happened to Robert Blake for shooting his wife Bonnie Lee Bakley to death.
The main differences are, in the criminal cases, the People of the State of California sued Simpson and Blake to try to send them to prison for life. In the civil trials, however, the relatives of the murdered persons tried to get millions of dollars from Simpson and Blake as money compensation for losing their loved ones.
Another main difference between criminal trials and civil trials—no doubt leading to the different results in both Simpson’s and Blake’s criminal versus civil cases—is something called the burden of proof. It’s what the plaintiffs, whether the People of the State of California in the criminal cases, or the relatives of the victims in the civil cases, must prove to the jury to get the desired punishment or compensation.
BURDEN OF PROOF
In a Criminal Case: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
When Simpson and Blake were on trial in the criminal courts, the State had the burden to prove beyond the juries’ “reasonable doubt” that these men did the crimes. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean 100% convinced. But, it’s close. It means convinced enough to send a person to prison for the rest of his or her life, or worse.
Obviously, the State was not able to convince the juries in those criminal trials beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson or Blake killed those victims.
In a Civil Case: By the Preponderance of Evidence
When the same men were on trial for the same acts in the civil courts, the relatives of the victims had the burden to prove to the juries “by the preponderance of evidence” that they did the killings. This means it was more probable or likely than not that they did them. Jurors are expected to focus on the quality or weight of the evidence instead of the quantity or amount of it. For example, one good witness can be believed against twenty witnesses who were drunk, distracted, or farther away from the scene.
Obviously, the relatives were able to convince the juries in those civil trials by the preponderance of evidence that Simpson and Blake did kill their victims.
Be sure to get the latest articles as soon as they’re posted by signing up here!
[For “How to Think Like a Lawyer,” click here.]
