Two For The Show

FOR FOUR MONTHS THE JURORS sat through a parade of witnesses who covered the same ground that had been beaten into the nation's psyche during the criminal trial. The mountains of blood evidence, the gruesome crime-scene pictures, the tales of spouse abuse. Yet pity the O. J. Simpson civil-trial jurors who zoned out, thinking nothing had changed. By the time closing arguments in the wrongful-death suit were presented last week, they had heard a case that had changed in tone and fact from the criminal case--from $160 designer shoes to the dramatic testimony of Simpson himself. And as they began deliberations this week the biggest difference--and question--was the jury itself. Would this mostly white jury view the evidence differently from the mostly black criminal jury? And how would the nation, black, white and otherwise, interpret its conclusion?

The most remarkable thing about last week's closing arguments was the absence of a racial theme. At the criminal trial, the nation was riveted by Johnnie Cochran's racially heated invocation of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Bible. But that pitch wouldn't necessarily play for this Santa Monica jury of eight whites, one black, one Asian-black and two Hispanics. So Simpson's main defense lawyer, Robert Baker, tried other tacks, portraying plaintiff Fred Goldman as a money-grubber. He suggested that Goldman was ""selling'' his son, Ron, for $450,000--the size of his book contract. ""This isn't a fight for justice,'' Baker sneered. ""It's a fight for money.'' The assault was a calculated risk, possibly a pre-emptive strike at any damage award the jury might eventually consider for Goldman.

The plaintiffs launched their own frontal attack on Simpson, whose five days of testimony defined the trial--and may well determine its outcome. Just moments into his closing argument, lead plaintiff lawyer Daniel Petrocelli turned his back on the jury and faced Simpson. Pointing his finger at the defendant, Petrocelli nearly shouted across the hush of the courtroom: ""There is a killer in this courtroom.'' He later brought tears to family members as he recalled Goldman's relationship with his father, playing a video from a party and borrowing from a 16th-century poet the line that Fred Goldman's ""lovely living boy is no more.''

It was an emotional closing to a trial that, for better or worse, lacked the circus atmosphere of the criminal trial--both inside and outside the courtroom. While the criminal case was long and rambling, this one clipped along tightly focused--without TV cameras. On paper, at least, the plaintiffs had several advantages going into the trial. One was the mostly white jury, believed to be less sympathetic to defense claims of a police frame-up. The other was the nature of a civil trial: only nine of 12 jurors are required for a finding of liability, and the burden of proof is only a ""preponderance of evidence''--not the ""beyond reasonable doubt'' threshold required in criminal trials. And rather than finding guilt or not, the jury was asked whether Simpson is liable for the wrongful death of Goldman and whether he committed battery with malice against Nicole and Goldman (a legal technicality). If the jury found against Simpson it would set compensatory damages for Ron's parents, and then deliberate a second time to arrive at the punitive damages, which are meant to punish, for both families. He cannot go to jail (chart).

Of course, some things can't change. The heart of the case remained the physical evidence against Simpson--the mountain of evidence, in the now familiar coinage of former prosecutor Marcia Clark. Petrocelli picked up on the theme. He methodically went through evidence showing the bloody gloves; Simpson's blood at the crime scene and the victims' blood in his Ford Bronco and splattered on socks on the floor of his home--all, he said, linking Simpson to the murders. ""By their blood, they forced him to step, step, step, to leave shoe prints just like fingerprints,'' Petrocelli said.

The defense lawyers echoed the same notes of police corruption and bungling that played so well in the criminal trial. ""Our defense on the case of physical evidence is very simple,'' said Robert Blasier, the only returning Dream Team lawyer. ""You can't trust it. It's been tampered with.'' Once again he retailed images of sloppy police technicians and mysterious blood samples. ""A criminal case is not like fine wine,'' said Blasier. ""It doesn't get better over time.''