On June 12th, 1994, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were found stabbed to death outside of her home in Brentwood, California. This led to one of the most controversial court cases in American history: the O.J. Simpson murder trial, formally known as the People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson. The trial took place from January 25th, 1995 to October 2nd, 1995, and Simpson pleaded a confident “absolutely, 100 percent not guilty” during his arraignment. Despite an overwhelming amount of DNA evidence against Simpson, it took the criminal court jury less than four hours to find him not guilty on October 3rd, 1995. However, the Goldman family brought a civil case against Simpson, and in 1997 the jury in the civil case ruled him as “liable” for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman and decided that he must pay $33.5 million in punitive award to the victims’ families.
With this particular case in mind, how could O.J. Simpson be not guilty of any criminal charges yet liable for both deaths? The answers lies in the many differences between criminal and civil law.
1. There are different parties in criminal and civil law.
A major factor that we used to differentiate between criminal and civil law is the parties involved. In criminal law, the parties are the defendant (the person accused of committing a crime) and the state or federal government. The government is more involved in this type of law because the defendant has broken a crime that was established by the government, such as murder or theft. However, civil law is more private; it deals with disputes between individuals and entities including defamation, divorce, and negligence. This distinction can be seen in O.J. Simpson’s trials as in his criminal case, he was prosecuted for murder by the People of the State of California, while the Goldman family chose to press charges on him in his civil case.
2. There are different sanctions in criminal and civil law.
The sanctions, often referred to as “punishments” also differ in both types of law. Criminal sanctions can be in the form of community service, rehabilitation, or jail sentence and can be as serious as life in prison or the death penalty. On the other hand, the penalties in a civil law case are often monetary such as paying a sum of money or damages to the other party or a restraining order. While O.J. Simpson did not face any criminal sanctions, he was given a hefty monetary sanction in the civil court.
3. There are different ways of handling evidence in criminal and civil law.
This final difference between criminal and civil law is exactly why O.J. Simpson was not indicted for murder yet was held responsible for his victims’ deaths. In criminal cases, there is the burden of proof. This means that the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order for them to be charged with a criminal offense. Simpson was not able to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because his defense lawyers argued against the credibility of the Los Angeles Police Department, saying that they possessed contaminated evidence and held biases against O.J. Not only this, but the glove believed to be worn by Simpson during the crime was too small and “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. However, in civil law, there is the preponderance of evidence, which is only “50 percent plus a feather”. There was enough evidence in the O.J. Simpson civil trial to fulfill this requirement, so he was held accountable for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
In conclusion, knowing the many distinctions in criminal and civil law can make it easier to interpret the outcome of confusing and controversial cases such as O.J. Simpson’s.
I’ve heard about the OJ trial before, but not the distinction between the criminal and civil cases. I recently learned in my metaphysics class that how to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime is an important philosophical question related to personal identity. For this reason, it seems odd to be that there are a bunch of (albeit somewhat guided) arbitrary rules for determining guilt. For instance, what is the logical justification behind the burdens of proof for each type of crime? I understand that the possibility of a false conviction is riskier for the criminal trial, but how we should determine how much riskier seems ambiguous. Thank you for clarifying the distinction between the two types, however, because it definitely makes more sense than if there were two different verdicts for the same trial!
This was a really informative post. I love how you broke down the difference between the cases in a concise manner that made it much easier to understand. I did not know about how different criminal and civil court can be with regards to burden of proof, so I found that incredibly interesting.
Thanks!!
Brilliantly detailed and easy to follow summary of what initially seemed a very confusing subject!
was really informative and i think he did was right about the trial
I like Orange Juice.
I still don’t understand why OJ being pronounced not guilty in a criminal trial could have been found guilty in a civil trial. If he was not guilty criminally how were the prosecutors in the civil case allowed to bring a guilty charge against him AND he paid….which kind of says “yes I’m guilty so here’s your $”. I’m not stupid in the ways of the law having worked for attorneys in CA when I lived there. Serious cases involved Police Brutality, Victims of Violent Crimes and Medical Malpractice. So I am not new to the courtroom. I feel that the two representing sides of the law need to have an overhaul to be consistent with each other’s findings. I am writing this just as a question about procedure and not because I am taking sides. I’m simply trying to understand the law and have no interest in the parties involved.
I think they did not have a enough evidence to prove he is guilty enough. But if it is in civil law, he might be in the jail. So, there are lot of question about this trial and i would like to do some research about this trial.