Trial Different, Question Same: Did Simpson Do It?

It’s a different courtroom with different lawyers, different jurors and a different standard of proof. The question, however, is the same: Did O.J. Simpson kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?

Opening statements begin today in the wrongful-death lawsuit brought against Simpson by the Brown and Goldman families. They are demanding unspecified damages from Simpson for the slayings, of which he was acquitted in criminal court a year ago.

The lawyers in the civil case have both the advantage - and disadvantage - of having seen the evidence unfold in court already.

“The prosecutors were blindsided last time,” said Laurie Levenson, dean of Loyola University Law School. “This time there will be fewer surprises to deal with.”

Among other things, the allegations of racism against detective Mark Fuhrman will no longer carry the element of surprise. It was Fuhrman who reported finding the bloody glove at Simpson’s estate.

Simpson’s lawyers are expected to sound the same themes that echoed so powerfully at his murder trial: claims that he was the victim of botched or tampered-with evidence as well as a racist police frame-up on Fuhrman’s part.

For the plaintiffs, the challenge is to prove something prosecutors could not - that Simpson stabbed to death his ex-wife and her friend in 1994 in a fit of rage and that a trail of blood, DNA and other physical evidence prove it.

This time, though, the standard of proof is lower. The jury need only be convinced by “the preponderance of the evidence,” not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That means the jury can hold Simpson responsible for the slayings if 51 percent of the evidence goes against him.

And unlike the criminal case, the verdict does not have to be unanimous. Only nine of the 12 jurors must agree to reach a verdict. It won’t be a “guilty” or “not guilty” verdict, but rather a finding of whether Simpson is or is not responsible for the slayings.

In another dramatic difference, the jury is a reverse image of the one that acquitted Simpson of murder. The old jury had nine blacks; the new one has nine whites.

Presiding over the case is Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki. Like Judge Lance Ito, he is a Japanese-American, but the similarities stop there. Ito was usually genial and was criticized for giving lawyers plenty of time to argue. Fujisaki is stern, unsmiling and abrupt.

As for Simpson, his freedom is not at stake this time, only his fortune. A big verdict could bankrupt the former football star. And this time, he is free to come and go, not behind bars. He can’t comment on the trial because of a court-imposed gag order.