-Brook

Just Desserts: Intimate Homicide and the Civil Trial (Revision)

I. Introduction: A Case Study

In a follow up to one of the most publicized criminal trials in American history, a jury found O.J. Simpson liable in a civil action for the deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her acquaintance Ronald Goldman, even though Simpson had previously been acquitted of their murders in the criminal proceeding. The Simpson trials provide an example of the salutary role civil trials can play in achieving some measure of justice for survivors of domestic homicides where the criminal justice system fails them.

While the Fifth Amendment forbids a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense, double jeopardy does not apply when a later action involves a different legal standard, for instance when a claim is civil rather than criminal in nature. While critics may contend that a civil penalty can be just as devastating as a criminal conviction, challenging the rationale for the exception, their objections falter relative to crimes that carry severe criminal penalties up to, and including death. Moreover, the uniquely private nature of the relationships of the parties to crimes like domestic violence makes meeting the high burden of proof for a criminal conviction especially difficult. Therefore, civil trials are particularly well suited to providing a remedy for survivors of victims of domestic killings. Although a civil judgment is not a complete substitute for a guilty verdict, by allowing a jury to reach another conclusion from the evidence the civil trial offers survivors a chance to punish the responsible party and set the record straight.

II. Domestic Violence and Homicide

Domestic violence takes many forms, the most drastic of which is homicide. Domestic homicide represents a significant social problem, accounting for over a thousand murders each year. In 2005, approximately one-third of all women murdered in the U.S. were killed by an intimate partner. Men are also victims of domestic homicide, although much less often.

Because criminal convictions require guilt to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a prosecutor’s job is never easy. However, prosecuting domestic violence presents special challenges. Often victims of domestic violence suffer in silence. Even when they do seek help, prosecutors must contend with perjury and recanted statements as victims struggle with inner conflicts and intimidation. Without reliable testimony, prosecutors face an uphill battle. Evidence based prosecutions must overcome the closeted character of domestic relationships, as well as court rulings restricting the admissibility of items like prior 911 tapes. In intimate homicide cases, the inability of the deceased to testify at all makes the prosecution’s case that much harder.

III. The Civil Trial

In the People v. Simpson, the defense leveraged the ambiguities inherent in domestic homicide, creating enough skepticism in jurors’ minds to prevail under the reasonable doubt standard. A year later, however, a civil jury concluded from a preponderance of evidence that Simpson was responsible for the two deaths. As exemplified in Simpson’s case, a civil suit following a criminal trial offers two major benefits to claimants: hindsight and a lower standard of proof. The lawyers for the families of the victims were able to build on the case made by the prosecution in the criminal trial, while avoiding its costly mistakes. The trial jury was only required to consider whether the evidence tilted toward a finding that Simpson was responsible for the deaths, and they promptly determined that it did. The families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman had another day in court, and this time they were vindicated.

The civil trial of O.J. Simpson highlights another important argument that civil suits can be useful for correcting miscarriages of criminal justice. Simpson was acquitted after a highly controversial trial in which the prosecution made several serious mistakes. For this reason, hindsight was particularly valuable to the lawyers litigating the civil suit against him. Where no such mistakes are made by the state, and a defendant is acquitted, it follows that a civil jury will be less likely to reach a conclusion different from that of the jury in the criminal trial. Therefore, fears that civil actions based on the same set of facts represent another bite at the apple can be mitigated. In effect, the civil trial functions to supplement the criminal justice system where the mechanisms it has adopted to protect the innocent defendant fail to protect the innocent victim.

IV. Conclusion

In prosecuting domestic homicides, the state frequently encounters relationships that are opaque and unlikely to yield evidence sufficient to get a conviction. Even when prosecutors manage to illustrate a credible history of prior abuse, as in the Simpson case, that evidence can fail to meet the state’s substantial burden of proof in the face of challenges from the defense. But the civil trial levels the playing field. A civil jury can assign blame free from the strictures of the criminal justice system. Although a civil judgment lacks the moral condemnation of a guilty verdict, the system still publicly recognizes and articulates a wrong. If a victory in civil court does not fully embody the justice the deceased or her family might have envisioned, it provides some justice, nonetheless.

-- Revision by BrookSutton - 23 Apr 2010