Did O.J. Really Do It?

Q: How can O.J. be “not-guilty” in a criminal trial, but found “liable” in a civil trial?

A: Believe it or not, it was a “Calvin and Hobbes” cartoon that I saw earlier this week that reminded me to answer this question. Precocious Calvin is at his desk penning his annual Christmas letter to Santa. In the first frame, Calvin begins, “Dear Santa, This year, please bear in mind that I should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.” He continues in the next bar, “Also, I would encourage you to interpret ‘reasonable doubt’ as broadly as possible.” Tossing the crumpled letter over his shoulder, Calvin ends the comic by remarking, “That’s probably a bad way to start.” Indeed.

Calvin’s colloquy with Santa reminded me of O.J. Simpson because of the burden of proof he hoped that Santa would interpret as “broadly as possible” in determining whether Calvin was good or bad this past year. Likewise, when jurors were faced with determining whether “The Juice” had been naughty or nice, they unwittingly had to undergo a similar analysis to Calvin’s request.

Trials are all about proof. We are al probably quite familiar that in a criminal trial, the prosecutor must prove a case, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A doubt is deemed “reasonable” if it is of “such convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it,” or so says the Supreme Court of Appeals of WV. Were we to assign a percentage to this level of proof, it would be pretty close to 99%. On the other hand, there is proof by a “preponderance of the evidence” meaning that the evidence proves that the given action is “more likely so than not so.” This means that to overcome this standard, in a civil (non-criminal) trial, proof of 50.00000001% is sufficient.

This is how O.J. can be found “not-guilty” in a criminal case, though “liable,” or “guilty,” in a civil trial. In the former, the jury apparently found that they had to acquit because the glove did not fit. That is, the prosecutors failed to remove that “reasonable doubt.” Like it or not, the jurors followed Calvin’s lead and interpreted “reasonable doubt” as broadly as possible.

However, in Orenthal’s civil case, the plaintiffs only needed to prove that the glove more likely fit than did not fit, so to speak. If the plaintiff’s evidence said that it was 50.00000001% likely that O.J. did it, than he was liable.

SIDEBAR: Let’s be sure of one thing – just because a criminal defendant is deemed, “not-guilty” does not mean that he or she is actually “innocent.” O.J. is a good example: does anyone really think he was “innocent?” IF he did it?

These levels or proof are quite important. We demand that proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” be provided because we are talking about someone’s life in a criminal trial. But, in civil cases, the proof can be less because we are merely speaking of money.

Our constitution guarantees us that criminals are presumed innocent, until any reasonable doubt of their innocence is removed. Were it any other way, I suppose Calvin would be right, it would probably be, “a bad way to start.”

Copyright: Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq. May not be used absent express, written permission. Please contact the author for permission to reprint.