How O.J. Simpson can be sued when he is innocent

A little old biz on the docket here at the Vastly Superior Court of Last Resort, in re: the People v. O.J. and its peculiar relation to the Goldmans et al. v. O.J. — why O.J.’s acquittal in the criminal trial wouldn’t be the ultimate defense against any civil charges of causing the wrongful death of Ron and Nicole. I dutifully reeled through several relevant points — mainly, that the plaintiffs/charges/penalties/degree of proof required are quite different in civil and criminal prosecutions but concluded by saying we untutored slobs with no inside track on the legal system (a.k.a., people smart enough not to grind through three years of law school) still might think it strange that O.J. could end up being both guilty and not guilty at the same time (if, in the Goldmans’ civil suit, he’s found guilty of causing wrongful deaths).

And wouldn’t you know, when my answer hit the street there was an attorney lurking in the shrubbery, eager to come forward to clarify. So in case anyone out there is still losing sleep over the question, here’s an abridged clarification from local jouster for justice Marty Bloom (@fa tcity.com). Remind me never again to even hint that the law is sometimes weird.

“F.O.P. asked how O.J. can be sued when ‘we legally have to assume he didn’t do it.’ We don’t have to assume anything other than that the government didn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.... We [might] even assume the jurors thought he did it, but just had a nagging doubt or two. Also, let’s be clear that the jurors bring in a verdict of‘not guilty.’ They do not bring in a verdict of‘innocent.’ There’s a world of difference between the two....

“[Y]ou legally do not have to assume Simpson didn’t do it. In the real world, there are many situations where the police know for sure that X committed a certain crime, but they do not have the evidence to prove it in court, so the matter never goes to court.... That does not mean that X is innocent....

“A criminal case is brought solely to punish the perpetrator for violating the peace of the community. If the victim wants compensation, the victim must seek it in his or her own suit in civil court.... The burden of proof is much different, so the failure of the state to obtain a conviction in the criminal case is often not a deterrent to the victim pursuing civil remedies. The bottom line is, there really is no inconsistency here, nor is it illogical for a civil suit such as the Goldmans’ to follow an acquittal in a criminal case.”

Speaking on behalf of all us Alicelanders, Marty, I trust there will be no bill for this consultation.