Simpson Case Against Punitive Damages Rejected

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

Simpson’s attorney Gerald 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 already was acquitted 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 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 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 Judge Haber has ordered 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 hasn’t 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 added.