1. No category

M1- Elise Le Goff
The O.J. Simpson trials: criminal and civil American law
Part 1: The O.J Simpson murder (criminal) trial, 1995
I.
General presentation of the case:
Introduction: a celebrity case / the role of the media
1.
2.
3.
II.
Double murder: Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman stabbed to death on June 12, 1994 in Santa
Monica, California.
O.J Simpson, #1 suspect: evidence (blood and gloves), alibi, domestic violence, the Bronco Chase.
The murder trial: The State of California v. O.J Simpson, 1995.
•
Place: Downtown LA. (context: the LA riots)
•
Jury selection: women and blacks.
•
OJ’s plea
•
Prosecution strategy: evidence and domestic violence – Marcia Clark, Chris Darden
•
Defense strategy: LAPD racist manipulation, evidence contaminated – Johnnie Cochran and the “dream
team”.
•
Key prosecution witness discredited: Mark Fuhrman
•
Evidence discredited: unreliable evidence.
•
The glove episode and Johnnie Cochran’s closing argument “If it does not fit, you must acquit”.
•
Standard of proof: “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”.
•
Verdict: O.J Simpson found not guilty.
Summary of the case:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm
Although the 1995 criminal trial of O. J. Simpson for the
murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman has
been called "a great trash novel come to life," no one can
deny the pull it had on the American public. If the early
reports of the murder of the wife of the ex-football-starturned-sports-announcer hadn't caught people's full attention,
Simpson's surreal Bronco ride on the day of his arrest
certainly did--ninety-five million television viewers witnessed
the slow police chase live. The 133 days of televised
courtroom testimony turned countless viewers into Simpson
trial junkies. Even foreign leaders such as Margaret Thatcher
and Boris Yeltsin eagerly gossiped about the trial. When
Yeltsin stepped off his plane to meet President Clinton, the
first question he asked was, "Do you think O. J. did
it?" When, at 10 a.m. PST on October 3, Judge Ito's clerk
read the jury's verdict of "Not Guilty," 91% of all persons
viewing television were glued to the unfolding scene in the Los
Angeles courtroom.
June 12, 1994
Exactly what happened sometime after ten o'clock on the
Sunday night of June 12, 1994 is still disputed, but most likely
a single male came through the back entrance of Nicole
Brown Simpson's condominium on Bundy Drive in the
prestigious Brentwood area of Los Angeles. In a small, nearly
enclosed area near the front gate, the man brutally slashed
Nicole, almost severing her neck from her body. Then he
struggled with and repeatedly--about thirty times--stabbed
Ronald Goldman. Ronald Goldman was a twenty-five-yearold acquaintance of Nicole's, who had come to her
condominium to return a pair of sunglasses that her mother
had left earlier that evening at the Mezzaluna restaurant. (…)
Nicole Brown Simpson's ex-husband, former football great
and media personality O. J. Simpson, meanwhile, was aboard
American Airlines flight #668 to Chicago. Simpson had taken
off from Los Angeles at 11:45 after receiving a ride to the
airport in a limousine driven by Allan Park, an employee of the
Town and Country Limousine Company. The limousine had
left the Simpson estate on Rockingham Avenue about half an
hour late, after Park called to report at 10:25 that no one
answered his ring at the door. Park observed a man he
assumed to be Simpson enter his house at 10:56.
Police called Simpson early Monday morning at the O'Hare
Plaza Hotel in Chicago, where Simpson had planned to attend
a convention of the Hertz rental car company. When informed
that his wife had been killed, Simpson did not ask how, when,
or by whom. He did--according to his later testimony--smash
a glass in grief, badly cutting his left hand. Prosecutors would
have a different explanation for the injury. Simpson boarded
the next flight to Los Angeles, arriving home about noon to
find a full-scale police investigation underway.
The Investigation Focuses on Simpson
Los Angeles police questioned Simpson for about a half hour
that day.
(…) Eventually, police accumulated enough
evidence indicating Simpson's guilt in the murders that they
sought and obtained a warrant for his arrest. Under an
agreement worked out with Simpson's attorney, Robert
Shapiro, Simpson was to turn himself in at police
headquarters by 10:00 on the morning of June 17, the day
following Nicole's funeral. When Simpson didn't show by the
agreed upon time, police told Shapiro that they would be
driving to his Brentwood home to pick him up. Sometime
after one o'clock, four officers knocked on Simpson's front
door. Soon they and Shapiro discovered that Simpson had
disappeared. Simpson left behind a letter. Addressed to "To
whom it may concern," it had all the markings of a suicide
letter. It ended: "Don't feel sorry for me. I've had a great life,
great friends. Please think of the real O. J. and not this lost
person. Thanks for making my life special. I hope I helped
yours. Peace and love, O. J." Around 6:20 a motorist in
Orange County saw Simpson riding in the white Bronco of his
friend, A. C. Cowlings, and notified police. Soon a dozen
police cars, news helicopters, and some curious members of
the public were following in pursuit of the Bronco. The slowmotion chase would finally end with Simpson's arrest in his
own driveway. After making the arrest, police discovered
$8,750 in cash, a false beard and mustache, a loaded gun,
and a passport in Cowlings' vehicle.
1 For the prosecution, the biggest mistake of the trial may well
have been to file the Simpson case in the downtown district
rather than--as is normal procedure--in the district in which
the crime occurred, in this case Santa Monica. The decision
was a political one, based on concerns that a conviction by
what would be a largely white jury in Santa Monica might
spark racial protests--or even riots similar to those that
occurred following the trial of four LAPD officers accused of
beating Rodney King. The prosecutors probably believed that
their case against Simpson was so strong that even the more
racially diverse jury likely in downtown Los Angeles would
have no choice but to convict.
Filing downtown would be only the first of many decisions that
may have cost prosecutors the case. (…) To name just a few:
the decision to have Simpson try the glove used in the
murder, the decision to call Mark Fuhrman to the stand, and
the strategy of presenting so much evidence from so many
witnesses over so many weeks that the case lost much of its
force.)
On July 22, 1994, Simpson answered the question " How do
you plead?" at his arraignment with "Absolutely one hundred
percent not guilty, Your Honor." Months of discovery, jury
selection, and hearings on issues such as whether to permit
cameras in the courtroom and the admissibility of DNA test
results followed.
The Trial Begins
The opening day of trial--Tuesday, January 24, 1995-- finally
came. Judge Lance Ito in his opening remarks told those
assembled in the courtroom that he expected to see "some
fabulous lawyering skills." Christopher Darden led off the
prosecution's opening statement by portraying Simpson as
an abusive husband and a jealous lover of Nicole Brown
Simpson. Darden told jurors, "If he couldn't have her, he didn't
want anybody else to have her." Marcia Clark followed with a
statement laying out the facts proving Simpson's guilt that the
prosecution would establish during the trial. The next day
Johnnie Cochran (…) told the jury that the defense would
prove that the evidence against Simpson was "contaminated,
compromised, and ultimately corrupted."
Over the next 99 days of trial, the prosecution put forward 72
witnesses. The first set of witnesses suggested that Simpson
had the motive and opportunity to kill. The second set of
witnesses suggested that Simpson had in fact used his
opportunity to kill his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman.
The first group of witnesses included relatives and friends of
Nicole, friends of O. J., and a 9-1-1 dispatcher, all produced
to demonstrate Simpson's motive and his history of domestic
abuse. (…) A 9-1-1 dispatcher took the stand so that the
prosecution might play for the jury a terrifying 9-1-1 call from
Nicole describing an ongoing assault by Simpson.
The prosecution next produced a set of witnesses--including
limousine driver Allan Park, Kato Kaelin, and officers of the
LAPD--to establish a timeline of events that left Simpson with
ample opportunity to commit murder. Limo driver Allan Park
proved to be one of the prosecution's most effective
witnesses. Park testified that he arrived at the Simpson home
on Rockingham at 10:25 to pick O. J. up for his scheduled
flight to Chicago. He said he rang the doorbell repeatedly, but
received no answer. Shortly before 11:00, according to Park,
a shadowy figure--black, tall, about 200 pounds, and wearing
dark clothes-- walked up the driveway and entered the
house. A few minutes later, Simpson emerged, telling Park he
had overslept. Park testified that as he entered the limo, he
carried a small black bag (which the prosecution hoped the
jury would conclude contained the murder weapon). Park
testified that Simpson would not let him touch the bag. The
bag has never been seen since. A skycap at the Los Angeles
Airport testified that he saw Simpson near a rubbish bin (…)
Finally, the prosecution began to put forward witnesses
directly tying Simpson to the two murders. The evidence was
technical and circumstantial, relating mostly of the results of
blood, hair, fiber, and footprint analysis from the Bundy crime
scene and Simpson's Rockingham home. (…) On crossexamination of the prosecution's DNA experts, the defense
had little choice but to begin to develop the theory that either
the blood samples were contaminated or they were planted by
corrupt police officers
The LAPD officer who found a bloody glove outside OJ’s
house turned out to be a godsend for the defense's corruptpolice theory. The officer, Mark Fuhrman, testified for the
prosecution on March 9 and 10. (…) Three days later, F. Lee
Bailey began a bullying cross-examination of Fuhrman in
which he asked the detective, whether, in the past ten years,
he had ever used "the n word." Fuhrman replied that he
absolutely never had done so. It was a lie.
A second prosecution disaster followed. Prosecutor
Christopher Darden, confident that the bloody gloves
belonged to Simpson, decided to make a dramatic courtroom
demonstration. He would ask Simpson, in full view of the jury,
to try on the gloves worn by Nicole's killer. Judge Ito asked a
bailiff to escort Simpson to a position near the jury
box. Darden instructed Simpson, "Pull them on, pull them
on." Simpson seemed to struggle with the gloves, then said,
"They don't fit. See? They don't fit." Later, it would turn out
that there were good reasons why they didn't fit--the gloves
may have shrunk because of the blood, photos would turn up
showing Simpson wearing ill-fitting gloves--but the damage
had been done. Later, Cochran would offer the memorable
refrain, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
The Dream Team Takes Center Stage
The strategy of Simpson's defense team, called the "Dream
Team" in the media, was to undermine the prosecution's
evidence concerning motive, suggest Simpson was physically
incapable of committing the crime, raise doubts about the
prosecution's timeline, and finally to suggest that the key
physical evidence against Simpson was either contaminated
or planted, or both (…)
The most talked-about aspect of the defense case
undoubtedly concerned Mark Fuhrman, the LAPD officer who
had found the bloody glove and who, as a prosecution
witness, denied using the word "nigger." It turned out that
Fuhrman had used "the n word"--many times--and it was on
tape. Laura Hart McKinny, an aspiring screenwriter from
North Carolina, had hired Fuhrman to consult with her on
police issues for a script she was writing. McKinny taped her
interviews with Fuhrman, who not only used the offensive
racial slur, but disclosed that he had sometimes planted
evidence to help secure convictions. Needless to say, the
defense wanted McKinny on the stand, and they wanted the
jury to hear selected portions of her tapes. (…) Judge Ito,
somewhat reluctantly, allowed the defense evidence. Ito's
decision opened the door for the defense to offer its rather
fantastic theory that Fuhrman took a glove from the Bundy
crime scene, rubbed it in Nicole's blood, then took it to
Rockingham to drop outside OJ’s house so as to frame
Simpson.
It may not, however, have been Fuhrman, but rather a softspoken Chinese-American forensic expert named Henry Lee
that won Simpson his acquittal. Lee had solid credentials,
smiled at the jury, and provided what seemed to be a
2
plausible justification for questioning the prosecution's key
physical evidence. Lee raised doubts with blood splatter
demonstrations, his suggestion that shoe print evidence
suggested more than one assailant, and his simple conclusion
about the prosecution's DNA tests: "Something's wrong." He
might have, as Christopher Darden speculated after the trial,
been the person who gave the jury "permission" to do what
they wanted to do anyway: acquit Simpson. (…)
The Jury Acquits
defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime
of murder."
(…)The Simpson trial demonstrated the polarization of racial
attitudes on issues such as law enforcement that still exists in
our country. It may be for that, more than anything, that the
trial will be remembered. But it had other effects. It created a
greater awareness of domestic violence issues, provided
lessons in how not to run a criminal trial, slowed the trend
toward the use of cameras in courtrooms, and created a new
type of "immersion" journalism that still flourishes today.
(… )The jury spent only three hours deliberating the case that
had produced 150 witnesses over 133 days and had cost $15
million to try. As America watched at 10 a.m. PST on October
3, 1995, Ito's clerk, Deidre Robertson, announced the jury's
verdict: "We the jury in the above entitled action find the
III. Legal vocabulary: match the words below with their definitions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
guilt
a warrant
an attorney
to turn oneself in
to try somebody
a trial
a crime
the stand
motive
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
to plant evidence
an opening
statement
a hearing
an arraignment,
discovery
to file a case
the jury box
•
•
•
•
•
•
a defendant
to frame somebody
a no guilty plea
the prosecution
the defense
an assault
a.
b.
c.
d.
an enclosure where the jury sit in court
a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person
the person accused
1) in criminal law, the government attorney charging and trying the case against a person accused of a
crime. 2) a common term for the government's side in a criminal case
e. when a defendant is refuting criminal charges brought against him or he
f. to provide false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime
g. 1) the side of a legal case which argues that a person who is being sued or accused of a crime is innocent 2)
the lawyer or lawyers who represent the defendant in a court case
h. responsibility for a crime or for doing something bad or wrong
i.
A criminal proceeding at which the defendant is officially called before a court, informed of the charges held
against them, and asked to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty
j.
the pre-trial phase in a court case in which each party can obtain evidence from the opposing party
k. a meeting or session at which evidence and arguments about a crime, complaint, etc., are presented to a
person or group who will have to decide on what action should be taken
l.
filing the document that starts the legal process in a court. That document is usually called a complaint or
petition.
m. a document issued by a court that gives the police the power to do something
n. a lawyer
o. to allow oneself to be arrested
p. used in connection with Criminal Law to explain why a person acted or refused to act in a certain way—for
example, to support the prosecution's assertion that the accused committed the crime. If a person accused
of murder was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased, the prosecution might argue that
greed was the ___________ for the killing.
q. to have a trial to decide if someone is innocent or guilty.
r. a formal meeting in a court in which evidence about crimes, disagreements, etc., is presented to a judge
and often a jury so that decisions can be made according to the law
s. 1) activity that is against the law 2) illegal acts in general
t. the place where a witness testifies in court.
u. to place objects at the crime scene to make somebody seem guilty of a crime.
v. each side lets the jury know what evidence they will present and what this evidence is supposed to
prove. This is the primary opportunity for attorneys to present their positions to the jury prior to the
introduction of the evidence upon which the jurors will base their decisions
IV. Pairwork: ask each other the questions below.
1.
2.
3.
When and where did the O.J Simpson murder trial take place?
Why is the case famous?
Who were the victims?
3 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
How were they killed?
Why was O.J Simpson the number 1 suspect?
What was the prosecution’s case based on?
What was the theory of the defense?
What was the racial context in LA?
Who were Marcia Clark, Chris Darden, Johnnie Cochran?
Who was Mark Fuhrman?
Explain “If it does not fit you must acquit”?
What was the composition of the jury? What was the standard of proof?
What was the verdict?
V. Video: Frontline, PBS, the O.J verdict - Chapter 1: The Perfect Storm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/view/
a. Before you watch: Who is who?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oj Simpson
Nicole Brown
Ronald Goldman
Judge Ito
Marcia Clark
Johnny Cochran
Mark Fuhrman
•
•
•
•
•
•
A LAPD detective in charge of the crime
scene and accused of racism and police
manipulation
One of the defense attorneys
One of the prosecuting attorneys
The judge in the criminal trial
The victims
The defendant
b. Now answer the questions below:
1. When was the verdict announced?
2. Where did the trial take place?
3. The OJ verdict was the most ____________ event in the history of television.
4. (1:28 to 1:47) “Essentially the ___________ country stopped. Long distance phone calls
______________ during that period. Trading on the stock ____________ dropped. Everything simply
stopped for the _________________ of the verdict because thatʼs how much the country was
___________________.”
5. “An estimated _____________ of ________________ Americans, the largest in history, was watching”.
6. What was the verdict in the OJ criminal case?
7. (3:16 to 3:36) Tonight on Frontline, the verdict that _______________ many of our _____________, that
cast _____________ on the concept of our justice system, and became the event that more than any other
event in recent history _________________ the difference between being white and black in America.
8. When did the double homicide take place?
9. What were the names of the victims?
10. Why was Nicole a celebrity?
11. Why was OJ Simpson famous?
12. Where did OJ say he was at the times of the killings?
13. (4:44 to 4:52) “When Simpson returned from ___________ followed by TV cameras, he was
__________________, then ________________ by the police and was temporarily _________________”.
14. The media megastory started when OJ tried to __________ in his white Bronco on the LA freeways. He
was ______________ by the police and cheered on by his fans.
15. (5:22 to 5:40) “There were ____________ that OJ was about to kill himself (…) It was
___________________, the country was hooked.”
16. Prof. Alan Dershowitz (5:42 to 5:58): “Everything came together, race, __________, beauty,
______________, ___________________, tape recordings, the _____________ of the car, the media
_____________, it was the perfect storm”.
17. What did OJ plead?
18. What was the name given to OJʼs team of lawyers?
19. Prof. Gerald Holman: (6:44 to 7:07) “Being a _________ professor, I was thinking, boy, this _________
is going to be a wonderful _____________ to educate the American people and teach them how our justice
system really __________. It took me about two weeks to realize that this wasnʼt about educating anybody,
this was __________________.”
20. What did some witnesses do before the trial?
21. What was Nicole sister's first reaction when she heard about Nicoleʼs death?
4
22. What did the police release a few days after the murders?
23. What did Faye Resnick say in the book she published while the jury was being selected?
24. (8:22 to 8:29): “ A worried judge Ito then stopped the ________________ (ie. jury selection) in order to
assess the ________________ making the Faye Resnick book an instant _________________.
25. Prof. Charles Ogletree (8:31 to 9:10): “It was a case that the government knew that they had flaws but
they had no choice. I canʼt blame them, they had to ___________ the case that they were given. They lost
____________ because of the media, witnesses were ________________, witnesses were
_______________ because they were paid to do interviews, family members were compromised because
they gave interview before the ____________ went to ____________. The government were literally
_____________what they were not able to present and what they _________ and thatʼs unfortunate. I donʼt
know if that would have changed the _________________ but it would have let them put on a much more
_________________ case.”
26. (9:13 to end) “Whatever flaws the _______________ case had, the choices they made as they later
admitted, did little to improve their chances. First they moved the trial from Santa Monica to Downtown Los
Angeles where most of the jury pool was likely to be composed of minorities. In fact, the final jury included
_________ African Americans, one Hispanic, and ________ whites, __________ were women”.
V.
Listening: NPR, Mixed legacy of OJ Simpson trial, June 8, 2004
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1947522
a. Listen to the introduction and answer the question: what is the main difference between the O.J criminal trial
and other celebrity trials?
b. Listen to the recording and fill in the blanks:
Alex Chadwick: But I do think that the OJ Simpsons trial kind of changed the way we think about the law and
trials in some ways.
Let's start with judges. What did judges _______________ from the trial?
Dahlia Lithwick: Well, I think ____________ judges learned to try to ___________ television cameras _____________
of the ___________. Judge Ito's nine month ______________ with gavel to gavel _________ just terrified the rest of
the ___________. And I think, really, judges learned to put _____________ on trials. None months is just too long.
This trial involved 36 lawyers, ________________ pages of trial __________________. Half of the jury who was
originally impanelled left and were _____________ by alternates. The whole thing was completely _____ ________
______________. I think keeping television cameras out of the courtroom and keeping things small and tight,
keeping jurors happy, became a real ____________ after the trial.
AC: And what about for prosecutors?
DL: Well, prosecutors really learned not to screw up. I think they learned, you know, _____________ __________
for sure that that glove ___________ before you have your defendant ___________ it __________. They learned, I
think, you know, that they need to know if one of their ________, who is going to be their star
____________________, is a racist. They need to know crucial things they just didn't know going in. And perhaps
most importantly, I think they learned that, you know, race _____________, that venue really ________________.
This is a case that could have been ____________ in Santa Monica. __________________ they filed it in ________
Los Angeles. And I think in a lot of ways, you know, because race mattered, that was a _____________________
bad decision.
AC: … and then you have the defense lawyers – OJ Simpson's attorney, Johnnie Cochran, he certainly became
the most noted of his several defense attorneys, especially when he... there were moments like this in his
closing argument.
Johnnie Cochran: Do the right thing, remembering that if it doesn't fit, you must _____________________.
AC: He's referring to the infamous _____________, of course. So, do defense lawyers study this trial now for tips
on how to get their clients off?
DL: Well, I think defense lawyers learned a lot about having this sort of a narrative that really plays to the jury and
that narrative of police __________, planting ____________ really worked with the OJ jury. And I think the other
____________ impact for defense lawyer is that, you know, what used to be seen as incontrovertible _________
and DNA evidence is no longer incontrovertible. Places like the Innocence Project that Barry Scheck, who was
involved in the O.J trial, you know, have gone on to exonerate countless defendants because labs screw up.
AC: And of course, there is another _______________ lesson from the OJ trial and that is that race remains one
of the great _______________ in the nation.
DL: I think that's right, Alex. I mean I think that, you know, it's not an accident that the majority of African
Americans think that O.J. was innocent and the majority of whites in this country think that O.J was guilty. There
is a huge race _____________ in the perception of what happened in that trial. I think it's that narrative we were
talking about. The narrative in this case that ultimately got him __________________ is that blacks really believe
_______, that a black man cannot get a __________ trial in white America.
AC: Opinion and analysis from Dahlia Lithwick. She writes the jurisprudence column for Slate and she's legal
contributor to Day to Day. Dahlia, thanks for joining us again.
c. Translate the underlined words.
5 Part 2: The O.J Simpson civil (wrongful death) case, 1997
I.
General presentation:
Plaintiff: Fred Goldman (Ron’s father)
Grounds: wrongful death
Place: Santa Monica
Composition of the jury and standard of proof: “preponderance of evidence”
OJ’s liability in the wrongful death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.
Damages awarded
II.
Summary of the civil case:
a) Summary 1:
The trial, held in Santa Monica, would take just three months and would produce a very different result. Simpson was forced
to testify, clumsily trying to explain the unexplainable. Photos showing Simpson wearing the size 12 Bruno Magli shoes that
he claimed not to own turned up first in one newspaper, then in others. The judge in the civil trial, Hiroshi Fujisaki, proved he
was no Lance Ito, and prevented the Simpson defense from introducing fanciful theories of a top-to-bottom conspiracy. After
seventeen hours of deliberation, the jury concluded--using the preponderance of the evidence test applicable in civil cases-that O. J. Simpson had wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. The jury ordered
Simpson to pay compensatory damages of $8.5 million and punitive damages of $25 million.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm
b) Summary 2:
On February 5, 1997, a civil jury in Santa Monica,
California unanimously found Simpson liable for the
wrongful death of and battery against Goldman, and
battery against Brown. Daniel Petrocelli represented
plaintiff Fred Goldman, Ronald Goldman's father.
Simpson was ordered to pay $33,500,000 in
damages. However, California law protects pensions
from being used to satisfy judgments, so Simpson
was able to continue much of his lifestyle based on
his NFL pension. In February 1999, an auction of
Simpson's Heisman Trophy and other belongings
netted almost $500,000. The money went to the
Goldman family.
a Federal judge issued a restraining order prohibiting
Simpson from spending any advance he may have
received on a canceled book deal and TV interview
about the 1994 murders. The matter was dismissed
before trial for lack of jurisdiction. On January 19,
2007, a California state judge issued an additional
restraining order, ordering Simpson to restrict his
spending to "ordinary and necessary living
expenses".[
A 2000 Rolling Stone article reported that Simpson
still made a significant income by signing
autographs. He subsequently moved from California
to Miami. In Florida, a person's residence cannot be
seized to collect a debt under most circumstances.
The Goldman family also tried to collect Simpson's
NFL pension of $28,000 a year but failed to collect
any money
On March 13, 2007, a judge prevented Simpson from
receiving any further compensation from the defunct
book deal and TV interview. He ordered the bundled
book rights to be auctioned. In August 2007, a
Florida bankruptcy court awarded the rights to the
book to the Goldman family to partially satisfy an
unpaid civil judgment. The book was renamed If I Did
It: Confessions of the Killer, with the word "If"
reduced in size to make it appear that the title was "I
Did It: Confessions of the Killer", and comments were
added to the original manuscript by the Goldman
family, author Pablo Fenjves, and prominent
investigative journalist Dominick Dunne. The
Goldman family was listed as the author.
On September 5, 2006, Goldman's father took
Simpson back to court to obtain control over his
"right to publicity" for purposes of satisfying the
judgment in the civil court case On January 4, 2007,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson#Wrongful
_death_civil_trial
c) Legal vocabulary: match the words below with their definitions:
•
•
•
•
1.
2.
3.
4.
restraining order
to dismiss a case
wrongful death
battery
•
•
•
liable
seize
preponderance
the evidence
of
•
•
compensatory damages
punitive damages
A sum of money awarded in a civil action by a court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment,
or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another.
A requirement that more then 50% of the evidence points to something. This is the burden of proof in a civil
trial.
to take possession of by legal process
Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to
compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer
6
5.
A court order limiting the amount of money O.J could spend ; in general, a court order that can protect you
from being physically abused, threatened, stalked or harassed
intentional act of making harmful or offensive contact with a person against that person’s will. It is both a
crime and a tort.
Responsible by law.
When someone dies due to the fault of another person or entity (like a car manufacturer), the survivors may
be able to bring a ____________ ___________ lawsuit. Such a lawsuit seeks compensation for the survivors'
loss, such as lost wages from the deceased, lost companionship, and funeral expenses.
6.
7.
8.
Wrongful death:
III.
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/lawsuit/wrongful_death.html#.UJkDyo4oB9I
Wrongful death is a claim against a person who can be held liable for a death. A wrongful death lawsuit claims that your
loved one's death was caused as a result of a willful act or wrongful act, or the negligence (liability) on the part of another
person (the defendant), and that the surviving dependents or beneficiaries are entitled to monetary damages as a result of
the defendant's conduct.
Wrongful death charges may be brought against the individual(s) responsible and can also be brought against public
agencies that may be responsible for death, including a city or state, a city jail, state prison, state or private hospital,
school, public company, nursing home, etc. State law defines who is allowed to bring a wrongful death suit. Some states
only allow a spouse or children to file a wrongful death lawsuit, while other states allow grandparents or other relatives to
file a claim for wrongful death damages.
As well, wrongful death lawsuits are brought to civil court and the complaint must be submitted within the statue of
limitations and these time limitations are different in each state. Every state has their own wrongful death law or set of laws,
which governs these civil personal injury cases.
A wrongful death can occur in a number of circumstances. Every year in the US, over 90,000 deaths occur due to
malpractice alone (including 7,000 deaths caused by medication errors) Other causes of wrongful death include slip and fall
(premise) injury, car or other vehicle accidents , nursing home abuse , work related injury, defective drug injury , dog bite
injury, exposure to toxic materials, and defective product injuries.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IV.
A wrongful death claim generally consists of the following:
The death was caused, in whole or part, by the conduct of the defendant;
The defendant was negligent or strictly liable for the victim's death;
There is a surviving spouse, children, beneficiaries or dependents; and
Monetary damages have resulted from the victim's death.
In a typical wrongful death case, a wrongful death lawyer seeks to obtain damages for the victim's family which may
include:
Immediate expenses associated with the death (medical & funeral);
Loss of victim's anticipated earnings in the future until time of retirement or death;
Loss of benefits caused by the victim's death (pension, medical coverage, etc.);
Loss of inheritance caused by the untimely death;
Pain and suffering, or mental anguish to the survivors;
Loss of care, protection, companionship to the survivors;
General damages;
Punitive damages
Differences between criminal and civil law in the American legal system:
The American legal system is comprised of two very different types of cases, civil and criminal. Crimes are generally offenses
against the state, and are accordingly prosecuted by the state. Civil cases on the other hand, are typically disputes between
individuals regarding the legal duties and responsibilities they owe one another.
Here are some of the key differences between a criminal case and a civil case:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Crimes are considered offenses against the state, or society as a whole. That means that even though one person
might murder another person, murder itself is considered an offense to everyone in society. Accordingly, crimes
against the state are prosecuted by the state, and the prosecutor (not the victim) files the case in court as a
representative of the state. If it were a civil case, then the wronged party would file the case.
Criminal offenses and civil offenses are generally different in terms of their punishment. Criminal cases will have jail
time as a potential punishment, whereas civil cases generally only result in monetary damages or orders to do or not
do something. Note that a criminal case may involve both jail time and monetary punishments in the form of fines.
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved
"beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the
preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in
a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because
the punishments are less severe.
Criminal cases almost always allow for a trial by jury. Civil cases do allow juries in some instances, but many civil
cases will be decided by a judge.
A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to an attorney, and if he or she can't afford one, the state must provide an
attorney. A defendant in a civil case is not given an attorney and must pay for one, or else defend him or herself.
The protections afforded to defendants under criminal law are considerable (such as the protection against illegal
searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment). Many of these well known protections are not available to a
7 defendant in a civil case.In general, because criminal cases have greater consequences - the possibility of jail and
even death - criminal cases have many more protections in place and are harder to prove.
The Same Conduct Can Produce Civil and Criminal Liability
Although criminal and civil cases are treated very differently, many people often fail to recognize that the same conduct can
result in both criminal and civil liability. Perhaps one of the most famous examples of this is the OJ Simpson trial. The same
conduct led to a murder trial (criminal) and a wrongful death trial (civil). In part because of the different standards of proof, there
was not enough evidence for a jury to decide that OJ Simpson was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal murder
case. In the civil trial, however, the jury found enough evidence to conclude that OJ Simpson wrongfully caused his wife's
death by a "preponderance of the evidence".
V.
Civil or criminal or both?
judge
sentence
fine
prison
defendant
plaintiff
tort
damages
liability
prosecution
the state
attorney
witness
testimony
evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt
preponderance of the
evidence
no win no fee agreement
wrongful death
legal homicide
murder
personal injury
Regina
deliberations
verdict
trial
to sue
to prosecute
Part 3: The O.J. Simpson robbery case
Listening: O.J. Simpson Found Guilty In Robbery Trial, NPR, Oct.4, 2008.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95394731
a) Fill in the blanks with the words that you hear:
SCOTT SIMON, host: Yesterday was the 13th anniversary of O.J. Simpson's __________________ in the murders
of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but once again, he was in court. This time, the courtroom was in
Las Vegas, not Los Angeles. The _____________ were armed _____________ and ____________________, not
murder. There was one other huge difference. O.J. Simpson was found __________________. NPR's Karen
Grigsby Bates was watching the drama unfold last night and joins us now to fill us in. Karen, thanks for being
with us.
KAREN GRIGSBY BATES: You're welcome, Scott.
SIMON: And remind us how O.J. Simpson wound up in that Vegas _____________________.
BATES: Well, he had been in Las Vegas the year before, apparently, for a social event, and he heard that there
were some dealers who were selling sports memorabilia that he thought had been ___________________
acquired from him. He didn't sell it to them. He wasn't sure how they had it, and he was kind of outraged that
somebody else would be selling what he called his stuff. He felt that he was ______________ to it, that the
proceeds from that was - were what he was able to live on to help ____________________ his children, and so he
wanted to get his stuff back.
And so that weekend, he - according to the ___________________, got together a couple of big guys, and
according to prosecution, again, decided that he was going to go up to the hotel room of the two memorabilia
dealers and intimidate them into relinquishing their ill-gotten gains.
SIMON: Is a lot of this case "he said, she said," or "he said, he said" - I think, I hadn't heard that there are any
women there, I could be corrected - or is there better _____________________?
BATES: Well, there was a lot of back and forth about who said what, who did what. But interestingly, the guy
who arranged to put Simpson together with the dealers ______________ hid a small digital recorder on top of the
armoire in the hotel room where they met, and so there's a _________________ of a lot of - it's pretty chaotic, but
8
there's a lot of shouting, and you know, give my stuff, and you guys have my stuff, and at some point mentioned
a ________________ in the room.
And so this is a part of what the prosecution used when it made its _____________________ to the jury that
Simpson and one of his cohorts, a guy named Clarence Stewart, had guns and were brandishing them to - sorry,
to intimidate these guys into giving up their stuff.
SIMON: Karen, when does Mr. Simpson get _____________________ and what's his exposure, as we say? How
much time could he serve?
BATES: He will be sentenced - he and Mr. Stewart will be sentenced on December 5th. District Judge Jackie
Glass has been very firm about the date and she says that's the only thing on her __________________ that day
and that's what's going to happen. So in about another two months we'll find out what the damages are. And he
could face life - up to life ____________________ because of the kidnapping ____________________________.
Apparently one of the charges is, you know, someone blocked the door, the gun was being brandished. So it's
first degree kidnapping with a deadly _______________, and the maximum _______________ for that, Scott, is life
imprisonment.
SIMON: NPR's Karen Grigsby Bates, thanks very much for being with us.
BATES: You're welcome.
b) The sentence:
O.J. Simpson was sentenced Friday to up to 33 years in prison for armed robbery and kidnapping in a failed
attempt to recover sports memorabilia from two collectibles dealers. Simpson will be eligible for parole after nine
years. His co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart was sentenced to at least 15 years behind bars.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,462565,00.html#ixzz2BRywGQU9
9