| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Below is an amended draft which has incorporated some of Brook’s considerations (included in his own redraft, below). | | | III. The Criminal Trial | |
<
< | The O.J. Simpson murder trial exemplifies the difficulties attending a domestic homicide prosecution, astronomically magnified. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were stabbed to death in Brentwood, California on June 12, 1994. Both bodies were mutilated, but the damage to Nicole was particularly appalling. The nature of the relationship between the two victims is vague - a romance was later implied. What was known was that Nicole’s husband O.J. was in town for his daughter’s dance recital, and he was a football player and a movie star, wealthy, talented and beloved.
In the months before the jury trial, the public was treated to a taste of the impending lunacy – slow speed chases in a white Ford Bronco, the dream team and a full tabloid sell-out by two key witnesses. By the time of the ‘not guilty’ verdict nine months later, the press had vividly re-imagined the proceedings into a soap opera everyone was watching. The validity of every piece of the prosecution’s physical evidence was somehow questionable. The lives and reputations of the witnesses, police officers, attorneys and even the judge had been fastidiously picked to pieces. The trial was, in other words, a mess, away from which walked O.J., a free man. | >
> | The O.J. Simpson murder trial exemplifies the difficulties attending a domestic homicide prosecution, astronomically magnified. From the beginning, the defense built its case around the holes in the evidence and police error (DNA samples, the bloody glove) – both of which ensured the failure of the state to meet its reasonable doubt burden. By the time of the ‘not guilty’ verdict nine months later, moreover, the press had re-imagined the proceedings into a sordid soap opera, which was devastating for the families of all involved. The validity of almost every piece of the prosecution’s physical evidence was rendered questionable, if not by the defense then by the tabloids. The lives and reputations of the witnesses, police officers, attorneys and even the judge had been fastidiously picked to pieces. The trial was, in other words, a mess, away from which walked O.J., a free man. | | | IV. The Civil Trial | |
<
< | A year later, however, O.J. was not so lucky. A civil suit following a criminal trial has the two major benefits of hindsight and a lower standard of proof - per the 5th amendment, double jeopardy bars a second murder (or lesser crime) trial, but not a wrongful death/survivor action. Unlike the first trial, these proceedings were not televised and lasted a mere four (as opposed to nine) months. The civil attorneys were more courteous and subdued than the Dream Team and moved though the motions at a clipped pace. Simpson himself was compelled to take the stand. The media was no longer preoccupied with the private lives of the actors – reporting was factual and brief. The trial jury and the appellate justices, free from the mayhem, needed consider only whether the evidence stacked above the 50% guilt line, and promptly affirmed that it did just that. | >
> | A year later, however, O.J. was not so lucky. A civil suit following a criminal trial has the two major benefits of hindsight and a lower standard of proof - the 5th amendment bars a second murder (or lesser crime) trial via double jeopardy, but not a wrongful death/survivor action. Unlike the first trial, these proceedings were not televised and lasted a mere four (as opposed to nine) months. The civil attorneys were more courteous and subdued than the Dream Team and moved though the motions at a clipped pace. Simpson himself was compelled to take the stand. The media was no longer preoccupied with the private lives of the actors – reporting was factual and brief. The trial jury and the appellate justices, free from the mayhem, needed consider only whether the evidence stacked above the 50% guilt line, and promptly affirmed that it did just that. | | | V. A Comparison | |
<
< | Summoning the mental and financial resources to engage in successive trials for some elusive, unpromised outcome is not an easy decision. Litigation is not only exhausting, but the putative civil defendant may be judgment proof, meaning the entire operation is a guaranteed net loss. The utility of the civil trial in the domestic violence context is not its promise of a windfall, however. The utility is in its (relatively) plaintiff-friendly mechanisms. | >
> | Summoning the mental and financial resources to engage in successive trials for some elusive, un-promised outcome is not an easy decision. Litigation is not only exhausting, but the putative civil defendant may be judgment proof, meaning the entire operation is a guaranteed net loss. Civil trials are also often much longer than criminal counterparts, and involve hiring an attorney and building a case at the plaintiff’s expense. The utility of the civil trial in the domestic violence context is not its promise of a windfall, however. The utility is in its (relatively) plaintiff-friendly mechanisms. | | | Often in intimate partner homicide cases, the prosecution must work to debunk a relationship that is extremely opaque. Even in the Simpson case, in which the prosecution managed to illustrate a credible history of prior abuse, said evidence was insufficient to meet the state’s burden in the face of a barrage of tainted evidence and witness character assassinations. But the civil trial has leeway, some extra give, which works well as a second option for a fair ruling. Although the second judgment lacks the moral condemnation of the first, the system still publicly recognizes and articulates a wrong. If articulation is not the complete justice the deceased or her family might have envisioned, it is some justice nonetheless. In a flawed system, any corrective device, however incomplete, burdensome or faulty, should be recognized as a welcome addition. |
|