In 1994, O.J. Simpson, former college and NFL superstar and, at the time, actor and celebrity, was charged with the murder of his ex-wife and her friend, Ronald Godman. It was among the most famous and notorious criminal trials of the 20th Century. In 1995, a Los Angeles jury found Mr. Simpson to be not guilty in the criminal case. In 1997, the parents of Ron Goldman won a civil suit for damages against Mr. Simpson based on the same events, facts etc. The Goldmansobtained a large judgment against Mr. Simpson.
This handout is about burden of proof and the standard of burden of proof. It wonders, how can it be that Mr. Simpson is found not guilty in the criminal case and then liable in the civil case. To answer this question, you must understand the interrelationship between the standard of burden of proof in criminal and civil cases. Please answer these questions. [Note: Just do your best on these. Neither the slides nor the notes provide absolute answers.]
1. What is burden of proof?
2. What is the "standard of burden of proof" for criminal and for civil cases?
3. If Mr. Simpson had been found guilty in the criminal case, how might this have affected the civil case?
4. Given that Mr. Simpson was found not guilty, how is it that plaintiffs could still file a civil action against him later?