OJ Simpson Criminal vs. Civil Trial: Key Legal Differences
This paper examines the legal distinctions between the criminal and civil trials of O.J. Simpson, clarifying why two separate proceedings did not constitute double jeopardy. It explains the differing burdens of proof — "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court versus "preponderance of the evidence" in civil court — and outlines the rights afforded to defendants in each system. The paper also covers the nature of wrongful death suits, how financial liability is determined, and how the civil jury reached a verdict of liability against Simpson despite his criminal acquittal. Together, these points illuminate how the American dual-court system can produce contrasting outcomes for the same underlying conduct.
- Introduction: Double Jeopardy and the Two Simpson Trials: Why two trials did not violate double jeopardy
- Criminal Court vs. Civil Court: Rights and Representation: Defendant rights and state prosecution compared
- Wrongful Death Suits and the Basis for Civil Liability: How wrongful death charges differ from murder
- Burden of Proof and the Role of the Jury in Civil Proceedings: Civil jury verdict and Simpson's financial liability
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds an abstract legal distinction — criminal versus civil court — in a widely known, concrete case, making the concepts accessible to a general audience.
- It consistently contrasts the two court systems side by side (burden of proof, right to counsel, jury rights), which reinforces comprehension through parallel structure.
- Quotations from legal sources and commentary are integrated to support each claim rather than replace analysis, maintaining a clear argumentative thread throughout.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative legal analysis: it identifies a common misconception (double jeopardy), then systematically unpacks the structural differences between criminal and civil proceedings to resolve that misconception. Each paragraph introduces a new dimension of comparison — rights, standards of proof, damages — building a cumulative explanation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by addressing the double jeopardy confusion and establishing why two trials were legally permissible. It then distinguishes criminal and civil proceedings by defendant rights. The third section defines wrongful death liability and how damages are calculated. The final section addresses jury composition in civil trials and explains the contrasting verdicts Simpson received. The references section lists three sources in a loose APA style.
Introduction: Double Jeopardy and the Two Simpson Trials
One of the most confusing aspects of the O.J. Simpson saga for laypersons was that Simpson was apparently tried twice for his crimes, despite the constitutional protection against double jeopardy — that is, being retried for the same offense. In the American justice system, once a defendant is tried for murder, even if new evidence is discovered against him or her, there can be no retrial for the same crime (Grubbs, 2016). The distinction is that Simpson was first tried in criminal court and was acquitted, and was then tried in civil court in a suit brought by the families of the victims, who demanded financial restitution for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman (Grubbs, 2016).
The burden of proof in civil court is far less onerous than in criminal court, given that defendants can only be penalized with fines rather than a loss of liberty. The burden of proof in civil court is merely the preponderance of the evidence, versus "beyond a reasonable doubt" as required in criminal court. According to Cornell University Law School, "preponderance of evidence" means that at least "50% of the evidence points to something," rather than requiring a unanimous decision (Grubbs, 2016).
Criminal Court vs. Civil Court: Rights and Representation
Criminal cases are considered crimes against society and are therefore tried by representatives of the state in the form of a prosecutor. Defendants in criminal proceedings are also afforded certain protections, such as the right to an attorney and the right to be tried by a jury of their peers. In contrast, in a civil case the defendant does not have a right to legal representation provided by the state; he or she must pay for an attorney independently ("The differences between a criminal case and a civil case," 2016).
The specific charge brought against O.J. Simpson through the civil justice system was that of wrongful death. Unlike a charge brought by the state, "a suit for wrongful death may only be brought by the personal representative of the decedent's estate. Every state has a civil 'wrongful death statute,' or set of statutes, which establish the procedures for bringing wrongful death actions" ("Wrongful death overview," 2016). In Simpson's case, the families of the deceased brought the charges against the disgraced former football star. "Actions for personal injury, conscious pain and suffering, or expenses incurred prior to the decedent's death are also brought by the personal representative" ("Wrongful death overview," 2016).
References
The differences between a criminal case and a civil case. (2016). Find Law. Retrieved from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/the-differences-between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html
Grubbs, J. (2016). What does O.J. Simpson's civil trial verdict mean? 'Liable' does not mean 'guilty.' Bustle. Retrieved from http://www.bustle.com/articles/152048-what-does-oj-simpsons-civil-trial-verdict-mean-liable-does-not-mean-guilty
Wrongful death overview. (2016). FindLaw. Retrieved from http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/wrongful-death-overview.html
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.