At the risk of having the Law Update take on a controversial topic, why was O.J. Simpson acquitted? More than a few people have asked this question, and there are many possible explanations. Let’s explore one.
The pundits in the news media are suggesting that Mr. Simpson may not fare so well in the civil wrongful death case brought by the Brown and Goldman families, predicting that he may actually lose that case. How can that be? The answer lies in the law applicable to each case.
O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the crime of murder – the complaining party was the State of California and the law applied was the California Penal Code, a criminal statute. In the case brought by the Brown and Goldman families, the complaining parties are the families and the applicable law is the civil law – in particular the law of torts. The tort system is the civil system of private redress for personal wrongs, and includes the law of negligence and intentional wrongful conduct.
A crucial distinction between the criminal system and the civil system is the burden of proof applicable in each case. In the criminal context, the accused goes free if there is “reasonable doubt” that he or she committed the crime. In the civil system, a party prevails where a preponderance of the evidence supports such a finding.
The State of California was required to show more than just a strong likelihood that Mr. Simpson committed murder. The prosecution effectively had to negate every reasonable possibility that he didn’t do it. That is a difficult burden to meet, especially when a popular celebrity is on trial.
In the civil case, the Brown and Goldman families – suing for money (and perhaps vindication) – only have to show that it is more likely than not that Mr. Simpson was the perpetrator. They do not have to eliminate other possibilities. The burden of proof in the civil case is thus much lower.
Think of the criminal standard as the “95% test” – if the jury is 95% convinced of guilt, it can find the defendant guilty. The civil standard is closer to 51%; if the “scales of justice” tip slightly in favor of one side or the other, he or she prevails. Which explains why the Brown and Goldman families have a better shot at prevailing this time around. Stay tuned.
The pundits in the news media are suggesting that Mr. Simpson may not fare so well in the civil wrongful death case brought by the Brown and Goldman families, predicting that he may actually lose that case. How can that be? The answer lies in the law applicable to each case.
O.J. Simpson was acquitted of the crime of murder – the complaining party was the State of California and the law applied was the California Penal Code, a criminal statute. In the case brought by the Brown and Goldman families, the complaining parties are the families and the applicable law is the civil law – in particular the law of torts. The tort system is the civil system of private redress for personal wrongs, and includes the law of negligence and intentional wrongful conduct.
A crucial distinction between the criminal system and the civil system is the burden of proof applicable in each case. In the criminal context, the accused goes free if there is “reasonable doubt” that he or she committed the crime. In the civil system, a party prevails where a preponderance of the evidence supports such a finding.
The State of California was required to show more than just a strong likelihood that Mr. Simpson committed murder. The prosecution effectively had to negate every reasonable possibility that he didn’t do it. That is a difficult burden to meet, especially when a popular celebrity is on trial.
In the civil case, the Brown and Goldman families – suing for money (and perhaps vindication) – only have to show that it is more likely than not that Mr. Simpson was the perpetrator. They do not have to eliminate other possibilities. The burden of proof in the civil case is thus much lower.
Think of the criminal standard as the “95% test” – if the jury is 95% convinced of guilt, it can find the defendant guilty. The civil standard is closer to 51%; if the “scales of justice” tip slightly in favor of one side or the other, he or she prevails. Which explains why the Brown and Goldman families have a better shot at prevailing this time around. Stay tuned.
– John Butera