A Brief Explanation of Civil vs. Criminal Cases: OJ Simpson

Greetings, wandering soul! The Ink-Stained Archivist invites you into the Library of the Lost—where, for each lost soul, a story might be found. 

But how have you come to find yourself here? Well, no matter—all lost souls are welcome in the hallowed halls of my library. Please, step inside. Don’t mind the cats in white wigs; they’re absolutely harmless…unless you’re a criminal in the eyes of the feline judicial system. 

Speaking of which, the cats and I are preparing to host a mock trial in the coming days. One of my beloved cats, Archimedes, is applying for law school in the fall. We’re all extremely proud of him. But I digress, of course!   

Please join us as we refresh his memory regarding the functionality of civil and criminal courts in the United States. 

     In accordance with the United States judicial system, an alleged crime may be pursued separately through both the criminal and civil courts, as was the case with the highly publicized trials pursued against OJ Simpson in the mid-to-late 1990s. These events are especially interesting because, although Simpson was found not guilty in criminal court, he did later lose the civil case brought against him. Twelve jurors unanimously found OJ Simpson not guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, implying to all who observed this highly publicized event that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not prove Simpson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, OJ Simpson was henceforth acquitted of criminal charges related to the killings of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in the eyes of the criminal court. 

In stark contrast, OJ Simpson clearly and irrefutably lost the wrongful death civil suit filed against him by the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. This divergence in verdicts between the criminal and civil courts would subsequently baffle and intrigue observers, and still stands as a striking, relevant example of the often misunderstood disparities between the criminal and civil court systems of the United States of America. 

While it is true the law prohibits an individual from being tried for the same offense more than once—a term known as double jeopardy—this principle applies only to criminal prosecutions and does not prevent related civil actions. Civil courts, for those unaware, do not prosecute crimes. Instead, they pursue damages and determine liability. Because the criminal case against Mr. OJ Simpson had already been pursued and ruled upon beforehand, the civil case’s plaintiffs and their counsel enjoyed open access to the transcripts and evidence produced during the criminal proceedings. This valuable resource allowed the plaintiffs and their counsel to avoid any mistakes they believed may have been made by the state prosecutors during the criminal trial while drawing directly from testimony and evidence introduced earlier in the criminal case’s proceedings.  

In civil cases, the jury must decide whether the defendant is indeed legally responsible. They are not, however, obliged to reach a unanimous verdict regarding the defendant’s legal liability, which is necessary in criminal cases when determining guilt. In criminal cases, the jury must determine if the defendant is indeed guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before any convictions and resulting criminal punishments are delivered. In the civil case brought against OJ Simpson, a jury of twelve was asked to determine whether he was liable for the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and to what extent. Twelve jurors concluded that Mr. Simpson was liable under the civil standard known as the preponderance of the evidence. In other words, it was determined that, more likely than not, Mr. Simpson was responsible for causing the deaths which he was accused of ending in the civil court proceedings. The lower burden of proof present in civil cases, as referenced above, aided the plaintiffs and their counsel as they built and presented their case against Mr. Simpson in their pursuit of monetary damages. 

Another factor that benefited the plaintiff’s side and led to OJ Simpson losing the civil case brought against him was his inability to ignore an order to testify, a rule exclusive to the civil court system. He was formally issued a subpoena, which compelled him to testify before the court at the time of the civil suit’s proceedings. Mr. Simpson—and any of us, really—can be compelled to provide testimony in any civil proceedings, regardless of our preferences. Failing to do so may result in the issuing of fines or arrest warrants, being held in contempt of court, or imprisonment. During civil court proceedings, defendants may invoke their fifth amendment right to remain silent if their testimony would criminally incriminate them; however, juries often draw adverse inferences based upon this decision. 

Regardless, OJ Simpson’s  testimony and deposition statements, which were delivered before the civil court, were disorganized, contradictory, and damning in the eyes of a great portion of the jury. This all, of course, likely served to damage Simpson’s credibility with the jurors. In addition, the judge who presided over the civil case ran his courtroom in a much more streamlined and controlled manner than the judge who presided over Simpson’s criminal case. Less time was given to speculation and supposition or to drawn-out testimonies and examinations. As a result,  OJ Simpson was deemed liable by the court in the civil case against him. He was, therefore, ordered millions of dollars in damages. 

     In summation, the case built by the plaintiffs and their counsel throughout the course of the civil trial was more succinct and strategically organized when compared to that of the prosecutors who pursued the criminal case against him. Civil and criminal courts function in notably different ways, with the rules and procedures of each varying in crucial ways. These key differences are notable in the civil and criminal cases pursued against OJ Simpson, and effectively illustrated by the verdicts reached. Famously, of course, OJ Simpson was found liable in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman by the civil court soon after he was acquitted of their murders.   

Well, wasn’t that fascinating? I must admit I find court proceedings rather tedious. Still, it is the duty of citizens to learn the processes relevant to their country’s justice system. Without such knowledge, those who oversee such processes might overstep the bounds of the law…

But again, I digress! 

Be on your way now, dear soul. 
If you’ve enjoyed this moment of judicial mischief, please do consider subscribing to Myths and Mischief. Each time we publish a new article, a wise, ancient wizard will promptly notify you. I ask only that you do not force me to reveal how any of these processes function. My skills wax and wane with stellar wordsmithery and mediocre cat-wrangling. 

Your Ink-stained Archivist bids you farewell.