Plaintiffs' best witness was O.J.

Jonathan T. Lovitt ; Richard Price

02/06/1997

USA Today

FINAL

Page 01A

SANTA MONICA, Calif. -- Somebody finally came up with a game plan to beat

O.J. Simpson in court, but most analysts agree the biggest weapon against him

was the defendant's own words.

The key in the overwhelming defeat handed Simpson by the civil jury was the

fact that he had to take the stand and face his accusers. And in two appearances,

one before Thanksgiving and one early last month, he foundered in a sea of

contradictions and inconsistencies.

``If you can't trust the messenger, you can't trust the message,'' jury analyst

Robert Hirschhorn says. ``O.J. was the messenger; the jurors didn't buy the

message.''

In his criminal trial, Simpson never had to deliver a message. Constitutionally

protected from testifying, Simpson allowed his lawyers to do all the talking, and

they won him an acquittal.

But in this civil case, Simpson had to testify or forfeit the case. And lawyers for

the plaintiffs, the families of murder victims Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald

Goldman, took full advantage.

Which leaves the world to debate a question that will go down through the years:

Which jury was right?

``Those who believe he was innocent will applaud the criminal verdict and

dismiss this finding as an unfair second shot at Simpson,'' Southwestern

University law professor Robert Pugsley says. ``And those who felt he was guilty

will think there is some measure of justice in the civil verdict.''

On Tuesday night, both families looked satisfied with the measure they drew

from this verdict. ``We finally have justice for Nicole and Ron,'' said Goldman's

father, Fred. ``It was done with honesty and dignity and complete truth.''

Hirschorn agreed. ``This was the moral victory they were looking for. It's a total

vindication.'' And it comes wrapped in a lot of money. The jury already has

awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages to Goldman's parents. That's

extraordinarily high for an individual defendant, and the jury set the stage

Tuesday for another run at Simpson's money.

It will consider punitive damages on Thursday, which potentially could be much

higher than compensatory damages, for the estates of Nicole Brown and

Goldman.

Simpson will never be a murderer. That was a criminal issue, and the criminal

jury acquitted him 16 months ago. But in many respects, the case against

Simpson in this civil trial was more sweeping. Most analysts believe that even if

Simpson hadn't taken the stand, the families had enough to win.

They came equipped with lessons from all the shortcomings and failures that cost

the prosecutors a conviction in the criminal trial.

So the families set out to make sure Simpson could never play the race card,

which most analysts believe played a paramount role in the criminal verdict. By

not calling former police detective Mark Fuhrman, accused by the defense of

planting evidence for racial reasons, the families blocked the defense from

introducing him.

The families' lawyers handled the DNA and other physical evidence better than

did prosecutors at the criminal trial. The families didn't belabor it. They breezed

through it quickly, never letting their case bog down in heavy science. But they

still threw it out there for jurors to see. There was Simpson's blood at the murder

scene, the victims' blood at his house and in his Ford Bronco, his hair on

Goldman's body.

And the families were ready for defense claims that the evidence had been

contaminated or planted. They brought in new experts to shoot down the

defense's old ones. Defense expert John Gerdes had testified the first time that

the Los Angeles police lab was a ``cesspool'' that routinely contaminated

evidence.

In the criminal case, the prosecution never fought back with its own experts. This

time, the families brought in an expert who testified that the DNA tests were

clean, and Gerdes wound up backing down. He admitted that virtually every drop

of blood tested in this case showed no signs of contamination.

In the criminal case, prosecutors never rebutted a defense expert who said

Nicole's blood had been planted on Simpson's sock. In this case, an expert for the

families said that wasn't true, and he then went on to explain exactly why not.

The families' lawyers also introduced personal testimony that never made it into

the criminal case. They gave more evidence of beatings of Nicole at the hands of

Simpson. They detailed his slow-speed chase five days after the murders and his

suicide letter. They entered testimony about Simpson's cell phone conversation

with police when he acknowledged that he was the ``only one who deserved'' to

be hurt.

The families went into exhaustive detail on the days leading up to the murders.

They used Nicole's own diaries and letters, not admissible in the criminal trial, to

suggest that Simpson had beaten her and was threatening to kill her.

The families also used Simpson's police statement against him, the one he gave

the day after the murders. Prosecutors never did that in the criminal case, fearing

it would help Simpson. But in the civil trial, the statement hurt him repeatedly.

When Simpson was on the stand, lawyers for the families kept hammering him

with inconsistencies. He told police he had cut his hand the night of the murders

but couldn't remember how. On the stand, he tried to back away and say he

hadn't cut himself at all that night.

The jury avoided Simpson's eyes at the time and didn't appear to be convinced.

Lawyers for the families came up with an emotional ``trigger'' to the crime, using

testimony from Simpson's girlfriend, Paula Barbieri, to show that she had broken

up with him that morning. Despondent then and depressed later when he couldn't

attend a family dinner arranged by Nicole after their daughter's recital, the

families argued, Simpson committed murder.

The families went to work on Simpson's own friends, getting his business

manager, LeRoy ``Skip'' Taft, and lifelong buddy, A.C. Cowlings, to give

testimony that trapped Simpson in apparent lies.

The families were helped by damaging new evidence that surfaced after the

criminal trial. An expert testified that small cuts on Simpson's hands came from

fingernail gouges. That never came out in the criminal trial, and it appeared to

catch Simpson off guard.

But more critically, the families offered 31 pictures of Simpson wearing those

rare, size 12 Bruno Magli shoes that matched bloody footprints found near the

bodies. Simpson had denied ever owning or wearing such a pair, calling them

``ugly ass shoes.''

But 30 of those 31 pictures stood unchallenged by the defense. And the only

picture the defense did challenge survived the test.

Nor did the families make a major gaffe. In the criminal case, prosecutor Chris

Darden risked having Simpson try on the gloves found at the scene and his

home. They looked tight, and the defense capitalized on it right to the end,

telling jurors, ``If they don't fit, you must acquit.''

Many analysts say the defense made the only major mistake by mentioning that

Simpson had offered to take a lie-detector test. The families' lawyers used that to

make the point that Simpson privately had taken a test and failed it with the

worst possible score.

The judge ordered jurors to ignore it, but there it stood.

Certainly, the families' lawyers are being credited for much of this victory. They

attacked Simpson with passion, and they never relied just on the evidence. At

every opportunity, they attacked the man, eroding his credibility.

TEXT OF INFO BOX BEGINS HERE

What the jury decided on the eight questions

The unanimous findings to the eight questions before the jurors in the O.J.

Simpson civil trial:

Yes *

1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson

willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?

Yes *

2. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson

committed battery against Ronald Goldman?

Yes *

3. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson

committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of

liability for battery against Ronald Goldman?

Yes *

4. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson

committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability

for battery against Ronald Goldman?

Yes *

5. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson

committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

Yes *

6. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson

committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of

liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

Yes *

7. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson

committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability

for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

Yes *

8. In a question about compensatory damages, jurors were asked how much

money Goldman's parents, Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufo, should receive for

loss of their son's companionship. Jurors were to determine a lump sum, which

the judge would later divide between the two parents. Nicole Simpson's estate

did not seek damages for loss of companionship.

Findings for the Goldman's parents: $8.5 million

GRAPHIC, B/W, Kevin Rechin, USA TODAY , Source: The Associated Press