Simpson’s Plea to Bar Punitive Damages in Civil Case Rejected

A Santa Monica Superior Court judge on Wednesday rejected O.J. Simpson’s contention that the plaintiffs in civil lawsuits against him are not entitled to punitive damages if a jury finds him responsible for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.

Simpson attorney Gerald F. Uelmen alleged that it would constitute a violation of due process of law and double jeopardy if a jury awarded punitive damages because his client was acquitted on charges of murdering his ex-wife and Goldman.

But lawyers for Fred Goldman and the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson argued successfully that there was no merit to Simpson’s argument.

“California law is clear: A criminal defendant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy does not bar a claim for punitive damages in a separate civil action,” noted the brief of Brentwood attorney Edward J. Horowitz, who represents Nicole Brown Simpson’s estate. He also said that courts had consistently rejected claims that there was any denial of due process by awarding punitive damages in such a situation.

Judge Alan B. Haber concurred, telling Uelmen that he did not agree with the proposition that subjecting Simpson to punitive damages would be unfair.

Outside court, lawyers for the plaintiffs said they were pleased by the ruling.

“I can’t imagine a more appropriate case for the application of punitive damages than in a civil case where the defendant is found liable for taking the life of another person,” said Daniel M. Petrocelli, Goldman’s lead lawyer.

Earlier in the day, plaintiffs’ lawyers concluded a 10-day deposition of Simpson, including questioning him about his finances. Outside the Santa Monica courthouse, John Quinlan Kelly, lead lawyer for Nicole Brown Simpson’s family, said he believes he now has a good idea of Simpson’s net worth, but he declined to say what it is because Haber has ordered that all the documents about Simpson’s finances be sealed for now.

Petrocelli said he plans to file motions to compel Simpson to turn over certain items that he has not given to the plaintiffs. “He hasn’t produced a number of articles of clothing, including the clothing he wore June 12, 1994. We asked him to produce hats and gloves and he produced none of that. We asked him to produce photos, videos and letters; he produced none of that,” Petrocelli said.

The judge’s ruling was expected by independent legal experts, such as Stanford University law professor Marc A. Franklin. He said he could envision a jury awarding a substantial punitive damage award in this case if the jury finds Simpson responsible for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Goldman, who were brutally murdered June 12, 1994. Simpson was acquitted of murder charges Oct. 3.

Brown family lawyer Horowitz said that under California law, punitive damages are supposed to bear some rational relationship to the compensatory damages awarded in a case. He said that among the factors appellate courts consider in assessing whether a punitive award is reasonable is the ratio of the punitive award to the compensatory award and the ratio of the punitive award to the defendant’s assets.

In recent years, corporations have mounted several challenges to large punitive damage awards--including a case lodged by BMW that is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. But Franklin said whatever the outcome of the BMW matter, he does not believe it would have any impact on the Simpson lawsuit, if he is found liable for the deaths.

“Tort actions against defendants who commit serious physical harm are not likely to be judged by what few limits the Supreme Court has imposed in the economic harm area,” Franklin said.

He added: “We don’t have much history of punitive damages in the context of an alleged murder” because wrongful death lawsuits are rarely filed in such situations, even when there has been a conviction. In large part, this stems from the fact that most persons accused of murder--unlike Simpson--are not wealthy.