Jury Decides Simpson Must Pay $25 Million in Punitive Award - By B. DRUMMOND AYRES Jr. Feb.

10, 1997
Writing one of the final chapters in O. J. Simpson's long legal case, a civil court jury here ordered him today to pay a
financially debilitating $25 million in punitive damages to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman.
The huge award constituted still another pointed contradiction of the much-disputed 1995 criminal court verdict that
found Mr. Simpson not guilty of the double slaying that has gripped the nation with its uncomfortable questions about
murder, wife battering, racism, celebrity and the quality of American justice. The same jury had awarded the Goldman
family 8.5 million in compensatory damages last week. Mr. Simpson does not now have $33.5 million and likely never
will. So it is but a guess how much less the plaintiffs' families will get, once the appeals and future court hearings are
completed and Mr. Simpson's time in court, already pushing three years, comes to an end
Speaking for the Brown family, its lawyer, John Q. Kelly, said the issue was never money because that would have
required putting a price tag on murder. ''And that's something you can't do,'' Mr. Kelly said. Before the jury could make
either a compensatory or punitive award, it first was required to determine whether Mr. Simpson was the killer.
Mr. Simpson, whose appeals will face both legal and financial hurdles, was not in court to hear today's verdict, which
was permissible because the case was a civil action. And neither he nor his lawyers made a statement afterward. The
jurors who chose to talk after leaving the courtroom -- the court identified them only by number -- generally said the
plaintiffs had more than made their case. That was the precise opposite of what jurors on the criminal court panel had
said in their out-of-court discussions of their deliberations.
''Finding O. J. Simpson liable of the murders and acting with oppression and malice was one of the easiest decisions I
have ever had to make,'' said Juror No. 11, a woman in her 30's. Juror No. 266, a woman in her 40's later identified as
Deena Mullen, said her decision was based on everything she heard in court, especially the evidence that by now has
become part of the nation's legal lore: the bloody-soled shoes, the incidents of wife-beating, the bloody gloves, the
sweat-suited figure in the dark, Mr. Simpson's taking the stand. ''He was not credible,'' she said.
Both juries heard basically the same case, with much emphasis placed on blood evidence by both sides. But there were
some important differences. The criminal case was tried by a predominantly black jury, and conviction required a finding
that Mr. Simpson committed the June 12, 1994, slayings beyond any reasonable doubt. The civil case was tried before a
predominantly white jury, and a verdict required only 9 of 12 votes, with the basic legal standard being that in all
probability Mr. Simpson committed the slayings.
In the criminal case, the defense made much of allegations that police investigators were racists out to get a black
American sports and entertainment celebrity. In the civil case, the jury heard little about racism because the court ruled
that such allegations were inflammatory and speculative. Further, the civil jury saw some new evidence, including
pictures of Mr. Simpson wearing shoes like those that left bloody prints at the slaying scene outside Mrs. Simpson's
condominium.
Finally, in the criminal case, Mr. Simpson did not take the stand, again his option. But in the civil case, Mr. Simpson was
called to testify, the plaintiffs' option, and he gave what was generally considered a mixed performance. Because of the
complicated manner in which the civil suit was filed, the $8.5 million award was granted only to the divorced parents of
Mr. Goldman, Sharon Rufo and Fred Goldman. The second award will be shared by Fred Goldman and the parents of
Mrs. Simpson, Louis and Judith Brown, who filed suit on behalf of the Simpson children, Sydney, 11, and Justin, 8, the
ultimate recipients of that share of the money. Both awards are expected to be appealed. They are subject to review
and, in the case of the second award, very possibly reduction by Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki, who presided
over the four-month-long proceedings.
Under California law, punitive damages are supposed to factor in the reprehensibility of the crime but also should bear
some resemblance to the defendant's worth. Thus, there is the question of whether Mr. Simpson, whose once-great
wealth of $10 million or so has been sharply whittled by his many legal fees, is worth anywhere close to $33.5 million
After today's verdict was announced, the families again expressed satisfaction. But that satisfaction, great as it was
because of the punishing size of the award, nevertheless loses a bit of its impact because in the two votes required to
reach the $25 million figure, the panel first split 11 to 1 and then 10 to 2. The first vote was on whether to award any
punitive damages at all. The second was on how much to award.
Regarding the 10-to-2 vote, one of the dissenting jurors, No. 294, Lisa Theriot, who is in her 20's, said she thought the
punitive damages should have been some millions less because she did not believe Mr. Simpson had $25 million. But she
agreed with the other jurors that he should be punished severely in terms of money. ''We all felt that he has the
potential to make a lot of money,'' she said. ''We didn't take the defense's argument that he was washed up.''
In order for Mr. Simpson to appeal the awards, he must first come up with a bond that equals 150 percent of them, a
huge monetary challenge, however much his future earning potential. If he can't produce such a bond, his next best
hope is that Judge Fujisaki trims the awards.
Generally speaking, experts in punitive damages say, such awards typically come to 2 percent of a defendant's net
worth.
''The size of this award seems to be very, very large by any standard,'' said Michael Rustad, a professor of law and
specialist in suit damages at Suffolk University in Boston. ''It seems to be a symbolic award. My best guess is that the
appeals court or the trial judge is likely to reduce the amount.''
In dismissing the jury today and concluding the civil proceedings, Judge Fujisaki acknowledged the task before him but
gave no indication where he was headed on the reduction issue. He simply thanked the jury for its work.
''It's been a difficult case, a long case,'' he said. ''Whether the case is over for you, it is probably not over for me, for
some time to come.''
Several practicing civil litigators expressed astonishment at the size of the award, and some cautioned that the judge
could cut it down in light of California law, which instructs the jury to punish but not destroy the defendant financially.
''It's stupendous,'' said Browne Greene, whose largest verdict was a $22 million award against a bus company in an
injury case last year. ''It should be cut, it really should, and I'm a plaintiff's lawyer. Knowing the infamy that this man lives
in now, I think that his chance of making money would be slim to none.''
Indeed, Mr. Greene said, these damages probably mark the end of the Simpson case, because Mr. Simpson will simply
not be financially able to mount an appeal.
Stephen Yagman, another civil litigator in California, said the verdict was 10 times what he had expected. Short of taking
up residence in France or another country without a reciprocal judgment agreement with the United States, Mr.
Simpson ''never will have a penny in his pocket the rest of his life.''
Brian Lysaght, a former federal prosecutor who does commercial litigation in California, noted that damage awards are
frequently reduced or overturned on appeal. But like other lawyers interviewed, he said he doubted that any reduction
would be significant enough to allow Mr. Simpson to post an appeal bond.
''The jury obviously focused on the reprehensibility of the conduct,'' he said, ''particularly in view of the fact that he's not
going to be punished anywhere else.''
Nor will bankruptcy bring him much relief, because under California law, damages for malicious conduct cannot be
discharged. Mr. Greene raised the possibility that financial ruin could even be a factor in Mr. Simpson's losing custody of
his two children, now 11 and 8
''Mostly what it reflects is a real sense of outrage, that they really didn't believe him,'' he said. ''They wanted to make a
statement to that effect, which is what punitive damages do.'' Vivian Berger, a professor of law at Columbia, agreed.
''This is as close as a civil jury can come,'' she said, ''to declaring him a murderer.''