What good is the civil courts decision?

O.J. par-fers golf to paying damages

BY MICHELLE CARUSO
DAILY NEWS WEST COAST BUREAU CHIEF

SANTA MONICA, Calif. - A defiant O.J. Simpson vowed yesterday he would rather "play golf" for the rest of his life than pay Fred Goldman a dime toward the $33.5 million civil judgment he owes for allegedly killing Goldman's son Ron and ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson.
"If I have to work to pay them, then I won't work. It's that simple," Simpson, 57, told a TV crew. "So I'll just play golf every day."

Simpson's tirade came as a judge ordered a pal of the ex-football star's to fork over Simpson's press passes to the 1984 Olympics for possible sale to help satisfy the judgment.

Simpson also took his cruelest potshot to date at Fred Goldman, saying "he didn't care about his son when he was alive" and accusing the dad of trying to "make money" off his son "in the grave."

The accusations rolled off Goldman, who called Simpson "a liar and a murderer" on MSNBC's "The Abrams Report."

Alfred Beardsley, a businessman from Burbank, Calif., said he had "no clue" what Simpson's Olympic passes, from his days as a TV sportscaster, would fetch. But he said other Simpson memorabilia items - seized from a storage locker last month - would go for as little as $125 each.

In 1997, a civil jury found Simpson responsible for the 1994 stabbing deaths of his ex-wife and her friend Goldman, who were found dead outside her Brentwood condo.

A criminal jury previously acquitted him of murder charges.

The civil jury ordered Simpson to pay $33.5 million in damages to the victims' families, but so far, only about $500,000 has been collected from the sale of Simpson's personal property, including his Heisman trophy, which sold for $250,000.

Simpson lives in a $575,000 house in Florida and collects about $28,000 to $30,000 a month from his NFL pension and an annuity. By law, that money cannot be touched by the victims' lawyers.

In the future, his annuity will pay him as much as $125,000 a month, said Michael Brewer, a lawyer for Goldman's mom, Sharon Rufo.

Originally published on November 24, 2004

i understand that the ability to prove guilt is much lesser in a civil suit, but if he was found not guilty in a criminal court, i dont see how he could then be sued in a civil court, in essence he was prosecuted for the same crime twice (though i know legally this isnt the case)

i despise the goldmans and browns immensely

I'm confused on how one jury can aquit him and another find him guilty. I know one is criminal and one is civil but one would think that if the first case was found innocent then the second case could have no bearing. It seems like a shity loophole. I don't know if he did it or not but he was found innocent in a court.

So lets see how this works. He is tried and found not to have committed murder. Then gets tried (again) and has to pay for something they had found he didn't do. Nice justice system down there. And I have to side with OJ on this one. If I was found innocent and they told I had to pay I would not work another day in my life either.

Criminal cases have a much more stringent standard on guilt than does a civil proceeding. To strip someone of their freedom you are held to a higher burden of proof.

he wasn't tried. He was sued.

wholly different process.

The legal trial was severely botched by the prosecution. DNA evidence proved Simpson murdered Goldman and Nicole Brown. He was acquitted in a legal trial because Johnny Cochran and simpsons team were badasses.

The Goldman family sued Simpson for wrongful death and was awarded the sum of 33.8 million (DAMN!) but so far has only collected $500,000 still a hell of a lot of money.

Essentially Simpson got away with murder. If I were him I'd play golf everyday too he's living a charmed life and they can't touch his money.

You can sue anyone in the US for damn near anything. I agree the civil trial law system sucks however it's pretty hard for me to feel bad for a guy that gets $120,000 a month that no one can touch, he gets to play golf all day and he got away with murder.

Yeah, this will eternally mind-boggle me as well.

I wonder if events that happened in the criminal trial were admissible in the civil trial.

I'm with The Juice on this one.

I'm with the Goldman's on this one.


I hope none of you are ever the victim of a crime.

How can someone be responsible for something they haven't been proven guilty of?

You kicked my cat, now give me a dollar.

So if my family member was killed in a car accident by a "drunk driver" who was at fault for the accident but wasn't convicted of "drunk driving", I can't sue this person for killing my family member? Come on.

OJ might not have been "convicted of first degree murder" but he is a murderer.

The trial was a farce. How can he even get sued for something he didn't do. Another show of how in America money can buy you anything. Even murder!!!

Who killed Ron Goldman then?? Santa Claus??? Kato?? Please tell me. Its not that hard to figure it out?? Seriously.

I don't believe you should be able to sue for compensation when a criminal trial has not been able to prove guilt. Correct. Suing them is way too close to double jeopardy and I'd be interested in an argument that can show it isn't just that.

I don't even live in the States and know who killed them. But if we play by the rules like the states do we can see he is innocent. So the man is innocent. How can he be held responsible for something he didn't do? Just because you and I and probably everybody on this board think we know who killed them. He is still an innocent man. Go ask Ito or one of the twelve jurors who killed Goldman and OJ's bitch.

Hey, we know he did it. There's no question there. It's the imperfections in the incredible bureaucracy that allow this kind of thing to happen. But if we're going to have these rules than we'd better follow them. A civil trial after a non-guilty criminal trial is double jeopardy.

I maybe wrong here but the outcome of a criminal case is determined by a jury of citizens and a civil case is determined by a judge based on the facts of a case. A civil case is more like a mediation than a trial.

Take the Kobe case for instance. The case never made it to an outcome so where do you stand on cases like these?

Good question. There was no outcome, but if I'm going to stand on the halls of double jeopardy I guess I'd have to say that Kobe can't be sued as well.

So basically what you are saying is that the only way to sue someone is to convict them of a crime???

While I seem to have thought that you need some kind of proof to sue somebody for something. You seem to think not.