O.J. Appeal Rejected

S A N  F R A N C I S C O, April 25, 2001 -- O.J. Simpson lost a major legal battletoday when the California Supreme Court declined to review acivil jury's finding that the former football star was liable forthe deaths of ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend RonaldGoldman.

The high court's decision also upholds the same jury's $33.5million judgment against Simpson and perhaps closes the finalchapter on one of the nation's most celebrated murder cases.

Charged in criminal court with murdering his ex-wife and Goldmanin 1994, Simpson was acquitted by a Los Angeles jury. He then wassued in civil court for wrongful death by the victims' survivors,and was found liable for the killings and ordered to pay $33.5million in damages.

Simpson, who has said he can't afford to pay the damages, askedthe California Supreme Court to reverse the judgment, writing thatthe civil case was "built on top of a failed prosecution, aprosecution which was suspect for corruption, fraud, contamination,coercion and collusion."

None of the high court's justices voted to review Simpson'sappeal.

More Payments Unlikely

To be held criminally liable in California, a jury had to findSimpson guilty of murder "beyond a reasonable doubt," which itdid not. In the civil trial, a different jury had to agree to alesser standard, that Simpson was liable for the deaths by a"preponderance of the evidence." To award damages, that samecivil jury had to find liability by "clear and convincingevidence."

Attorneys for the victims' families urged the justices in courtpapers not to consider Simpson's appeal, saying the civil juryfound clear and convincing evidence that "Simpson murdered RonaldGoldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

Edward Horowitz, the Los Angeles lawyer representing LouisBrown, Nicole's father, said today that Simpson has paid "acouple hundred thousand" from the judgment though the sale offurnishings and his Heisman Trophy but doesn't think the familieswill collect much more.

"The significance of this decision is that the only jury thatever heard Simpson testify found by clear and convincing evidencethat he did it, and the court decided not to take the case,"Horowitz said.

Exemption for Pension

Simpson has avoided paying the bulk of the award and lives welltoday in Florida on a hefty pension plan he set up when he wasmaking millions. Such pensions are exempt from civil courtjudgments, although any money Simpson earns could be seizedimmediately by the court. Florida law prevents the victims'families from seizing Simpson's house.

"We'll keep watching and checking to keep an eye on him," saidPeter Gelblum, the Goldman family attorney. "If he makes anymoney, we'll try to seize it."

Simpson, who wrote his own appeal to the high court without theassistance of counsel, was told by his lawyers to "throw in thetowel" on further appeals, according to a Simpson friend andadviser.

Dr. Henry Johnson, an internist who became interested inSimpson's case about four years ago, said he helped Simpson draftthe appeal.

"O.J.'s lawyers, they ran out of gas," Johnson said in arecent interview. "They told him … he should throw in the toweland not spend any more money."

O.J. the Lawyer

Johnson said that Simpson did not have further funds to investin a new team of attorneys, but decided he wanted to fight on hisown.

His appeal to the high court raises several points, but focusedheavily on two areas: a discrepancy in missing phone records thatSimpson says would exonerate him, and the absence of disgracedpolice Detective Mark Fuhrman as a witness in Simpson's civiltrial.

He claimed he was denied the right to confront witnesses andevidence against him during the civil trial. Specifically, he citesFuhrman being declared an unavailable witness because he invokedhis Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

He noted that the defense also was denied the right to introduceFuhrman's testimony from the criminal trial because Fuhrman'scross-examination there was aborted by his Fifth Amendment claim.

"Petitioner is denied a fair and impartial trial if he isunable to present the testimony of a witness who is deemedessential to his defense of a civil action," Simpson's brief said.

Had Fuhrman testified, Simpson said, his lawyers would havechallenged his claim that he found a bloody glove on Simpson'sproperty.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal examined the Fuhrman issue andfound that his exclusion from the civil trial was supported by law.

On the issue of phone records, not raised in the earlier appeal,Simpson argued that varying times were given for the hour at whichNicole Brown Simpson last spoke to her mother, Juditha Brown.Simpson claims the records would show that she was alive at 11 p.m.when he entered a limousine for a ride to the airport.

Simpson said the phone records were sealed after his preliminaryhearing and later were removed from the trial files. Simpson andJohnson have gone to several courts to argue for production of thephone records, to no avail.

The case is Rufo v. Simpson, S095839.