BY NAOMI CRAINE
For several months, nightly TV news broadcasts across the United States began with an update on the second trial of Orenthal James Simpson, who was acquitted in 1995 of murder charges in the deaths of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman. Simpson was found guilty in the second trial, on civil charges of wrongful death brought by the families of the deceased. He was ordered to pay the plaintiffs $8.5 million in compensatory damages.

Working people should oppose this second trial as a clear case of double jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits twice putting a person "in jeopardy of life and limb" for the same alleged crime. This is one of the basic rights of the accused stipulated as part of the Bill of Rights, which codifies many of the democratic safeguards that the working class needs to defend its interests, and that the capitalist rulers keep trying to whittle away at.

The prohibition on double jeopardy means that if you're acquitted of some offense, the state can't just keep retrying you until they get the desired verdict.

Previous court rulings had already set a precedent that private lawsuits - such as the "wrongful death" charges against Simpson - don't violate this provision. The high- profile Simpson trial gave added legitimacy to this narrowing of democratic rights.

In a February 6 editorial, the New York Times declared the outcome of the second trial "a reasonable response." Although "some experts consider the second trial a violation of the principle of double jeopardy," the editors wrote, "there seems no reason that the original verdict should give him [Simpson] immunity from civil suits."

Many other aspects of the second Simpson trial breached democratic safeguards. One was setting the venue in an area where most members of the jury would be white, instead of mostly Black as was the case in the first trial.

The earlier acquittal of Simpson, who is Black, hinged on the jury's rejection of blatant racism and lies on the part of the Los Angeles police officers involved in the investigation. One of the cops, Mark Furhman, was caught in a lie on the witness stand, when he claimed he never used racist epithets against Blacks. The defense then played an audio tape in which Furhman repeatedly referred to "niggers" and bragged about beating up and framing numerous people.

It's worth noting that Furhman was never charged with perjury, despite this obvious case against him. Neither Simpson's defense lawyers nor the prosecution or other officials filed such charges.

Other cops involved in the investigation admitted sloppy handling of blood samples and other evidence. It was under these circumstances that the jury refused to find Simpson "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Lower standard of evidence allowed
The standard for finding someone guilty in a "civil" case is substantially less than in a criminal court. The jury in the latest trial was charged with determining whether a "preponderance of the evidence" showed Simpson guilty, not whether he was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Allowing this lower standard of evidence is a blow to the presumption of innocence, a very recent democratic gain.

Through most of the history of class society, when a person from the toiling classes was accused of something the presumption was that of guilt. If you were allowed any hearing at all, it was to "prove" your innocence, a virtually impossible task. Putting the burden of proof on the accuser, not the accused, is a fundamental democratic conquest that the working class must fiercely defend, for everyone.

There were other factors that made the second Simpson trial a travesty. Unlike the criminal case, there didn't have to be a unanimous jury to win a conviction, just a two- thirds majority vote by the jurors. Simpson was also forced to testify, which he chose not to do at the criminal trial. This violated constitutional protections against self- incrimination.

O.J. Simpson is a former sports star who has garnered millions from advertising various products. His life as a social parasite -like the lives of most of those around him -is totally alien to working people. No worker accused of a crime could buy the kind of defense Simpson had at either of his trials.

But this shouldn't blind workers to the dangerous abuse of democratic rights that was carried out - one that will be committed a thousand times over against workers and their allies, particularly those who stand up and fight. To ignore this would be to fall prey to the politics of resentment - the argument that "O.J. Simpson is a millionaire, so his rights are no concern of mine."

The second Simpson trial coincided with the second trial of Lemrick Nelson, a youth from Brooklyn who is Black, in connection with the killing of Yankel Rosenbaum in 1991. While the big-business press trumpeted the incident that led to Rosenbaum's death as an anti-Jewish riot, the outburst actually erupted in response to racist treatment of Black residents of Crown Heights by the cops and emergency personnel after a Black child was killed in a traffic accident.

Nelson, who was 16 at the time, was charged with stabbing Rosenbaum to death on circumstantial evidence that relied heavily on the word of the cops. He was acquitted in a state trial in 1992, with the jurors openly saying they did not believe the cops' story. Nelson was then retried on federal civil rights charges, convicted, and faces 6 to 20 years in prison.

The grounds on which Nelson was tried in federal court were established in the 1960s, when state governments refused to vigorously prosecute the murderers of civil rights activists in the South.

Under pressure from the advancing fight for Black rights, the federal government was forced to take action. Federal prosecution of those acquitted of racist acts in the state courts was a gain for the working class. The application of this precedent in the case of Nelson, however, a young Black man framed up by the police, was a travesty of justice.

The Simpson trial also took place in the context of other attacks on the rights of the accused, prisoners, and those who have previously been convicted of a crime. These include taking away the civil rights of alleged sex offenders, increasing the cops' powers to carry out warrantless searches, and others.

Working people should speak out against all these attacks on democratic rights.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home