[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Pat Valentino
Date: 12/21/00
Time: 7:25:57 AM
Here's what I've been able to find:
Simpson Appeals $33.5M Verdict
Thursday, December 14, 2000
By LINDA DEUTSCH AP Special Correspondent
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Nearly four years after O.J. Simpson was found liable for the deaths of his ex-wife and a friend, his lawyer urged an appeals court Thursday to reverse the $33.5 million verdict on grounds that the trial judge allowed inadmissible evidence.
Attorney Daniel Leonard said the jury was prejudiced by testimony that Simpson had failed a polygraph test and that his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson had called a battered-women's shelter about five days before she was killed in June 1994. Leonard also told the 2nd District Court of Appeal that the exclusion of testimony by former Los Angeles police detective Mark Fuhrman barred important evidence of a police plan to frame Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
A criminal court jury acquitted Simpson of murder charges in 1995. In 1997, a jury in a civil wrongful death lawsuit against Simpson awarded the plaintiffs $8.5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages.
Simpson's attorney noted that since his criminal and civil trials, public attitudes toward Los Angeles police have changed dramatically, especially because of corruption allegations against members of an anti-gang unit in the department's Rampart area. ``Pre-Rampart, when you tried to convince a jury that the police planted evidence, you had an extremely high hurdle,'' Leonard said.
He was interrupted by appeals court Justice J. Gary Hastings, who said, ``So now if it goes back (for retrial) after Rampart, people will believe it?'' Justice Charles S. Vogel added, ``It would greatly enhance the argument of the defense that the defendant was framed. ... What you're saying is that with Fuhrman it would put in question the DNA evidence. It would show that Mr. Fuhrman and others spread it around on the back gate and elsewhere.'' Leonard responded, ``I couldn't have stated it better.'' Vogel, Hastings and Justice Norman L. Epstein questioned Leonard extensively on the issue of the polygraph evidence, noting that Simpson's lawyer, Robert Baker, first mentioned the lie detector in his opening statement, thus apparently opening the door for the plaintiffs to pursue the issue.``If in the opening statement Mr. Simpson's lawyer said he offered to take a polygraph, then the genie is out of the bottle,'' Vogel said. ``The plaintiffs' lawyers heard that and they just laid in the bushes waiting.''
In response, attorney Daniel Petrocelli, representing Goldman's father, Fred, and leader of the plaintiffs' team against Simpson, acknowledged that he never objected to Baker's statement because he knew the evidence and knew it would be raised later.
Petrocelli told the court that it should not reverse the $33.5 million in damages on the basis of possible legal missteps which were insignificant in light of overwhelming evidence against Simpson. ``Even if all of these allegations are right, there is still enough evidence to sustain a verdict,'' Petrocelli said. ``There is an overwhelming amount of evidence of his guilt.'' Regarding the call made to a battered-women's shelter, the justices appeared willing to accept the fact that although the caller's identity was in doubt, Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki gave strong enough instructions to the jury to overcome any prejudicial effect. They noted that the woman who took the call later heard recordings of Nicole Brown Simpson's voice and said it sounded similar to the caller who identified herself only as Nicole. Nicole Brown Simpson's father, Louis Brown, the executor of her estate, sat quietly during the appellate arguments and left without comment when they ended.Petrocelli and attorney Edward Horowitz, representing Brown, told the justices the punitive damages were appropriate and did not cripple Simpson financially because he has a $4.5 million pension fund.
``This case is unique,'' Horowitz said, saying he knows of no other assessment of punitive damages for a murder. Outside court, Petrocelli said the plaintiffs have been unable to collect much of the award despite seizure of some Simpson assets such personal property from his home, including his Heisman Trophy. He said they have netted perhaps $400,000 to $500,000, which has gone to cover expenses.
The appeals court did not indicate when it will rule.
Copyright ©2000 Associated Press.
OJ Simpson Case Back in Court in Los Angeles
Thursday, December 14, 2000
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The O.J. Simpson case returned to the spotlight on Thursday when lawyers for the former football star asked an appeals court to reverse a $33.5 million civil judgement for the wrongful deaths of his ex-wife and her friend.
Simpson, who was acquitted of the 1994 murders in a criminal case but found liable in 1997 for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman, was not expected to attend the Los Angeles hearing.
He has made a new home with his children in Florida, far from the city where the controversial "Trial of the Century" shocked and captivated the nation and the world.
Simpson's lawyers were to argue before the 2nd District Court of Appeals that the judge in the civil trial admitted prejudicial evidence including prior incidents of alleged physical and verbal abuse by Simpson toward his ex-wife.
"The introduction of this evidence was designed to show the jury that Simpson was a 'bad person' who had resorted to violence in the past and therefore must have done it," the lawyers said in court documents.
Opening briefs in the appeal were filed in July 1998 but Thursday's court hearing was expected to be the first full airing of the case.
Fred Goldman, father of Ron Goldman, was furious when the appeal was first filed; "This is proof positive that the monster does not want to be punished for his actions," Goldman said in 1998.
Some of Simpson's belongings, including furniture, rugs, and sporting trophies, were auctioned off to help pay the $33.5 million wrongful death judgement but the vast majority of the money is still outstanding.
Copyright ©2000 Reuters Limited.
Regards,
Pat