SHOW CAUSE ORDER A court order, made upon the motion of an applicant, that requires a party to appear and provide reasons why the court should not perform or not allow a particular actio
Trang 1should not be performed or allowed and mandates such party to meet thePRIMA FACIEcase set forth in the complaint orAFFIDAVITof the applicant
A SHOW CAUSE ORDER mandates that an indi-vidual or corporation make a court appearance
to explain why the court should not take a proposed action In the event that such individ-ual or corporation does not appear or provide adequate reasons why the court should take no action, action will be taken by the court
SHOW CAUSE ORDER
A court order, made upon the motion of an applicant, that requires a party to appear and provide reasons why the court should not perform
or not allow a particular action and mandates this party to meet thePRIMA FACIEcase set forth in the complaint orAFFIDAVITof the applicant
A show cause order, also called an order to show cause, mandates that an individual or corporation make a court appearance to explain why the court should not take a proposed action A court issues this type of order upon the application of a party requesting specific relief and providing the court with an affidavit
or declaration (a sworn or affirmed statement alleging certain facts) A show cause order is generally used in CONTEMPT actions, cases involving injunctive relief, and situations where time is of the essence
A show cause order can be viewed as an accelerated motion A motion is an application
to the court for an order that seeks answers to questions that are collateral to the main object
of the action For example, in a civil lawsuit the plaintiff generally requests from the defendant documents pertinent to the case If the defen-dant refuses to provide the documents or does not make a timely response to the request, the plaintiff may file a motion with the court asking that it issue an order to compel the defendant to produce the documents
A show cause order is similar to a motion but
it can produce a court order on the requested relief much more quickly than a motion can For example, after a motion is served on the opposing party, that party has a certain number
of days under the jurisdiction’s rules of CIVIL PROCEDUREto prepare a response A show cause order is submitted to a judge, who reads the applicant’s papers and decides the deadline for the responding party’s submission of papers The
judge may order an opposing party to appear
“forthwith” in urgent cases The judge may hear arguments on the matter at some place other than the courthouse, if necessary, and may allow papers to be served on opposing parties by a method not ordinarily permitted
A judge may include in the show cause order aTEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERor stay that maintains the status quo as long as the matter is pending before the court At the hearing on the show cause order, if the responding party fails
to rebut the prima facie case (evidence sufficient
to establish a fact if uncontradicted) made by the applicant, the court will grant the relief sought by the applicant
SHOW-UP The live presentation of a criminal suspect to a victim or witness of a crime
A show-up usually occurs immediately or shortly after a crime has occurred If law en-forcement personnel see a person they suspect
is the perpetrator of a very recent crime, the officers may apprehend the suspect and bring him or her back to the scene of the crime and show him or her to witnesses, or they may take the suspect to a police station and bring the witnesses to the station This method of iden-tification of a criminal suspect is a legitimate tool of law enforcement and is encumbered by few judicial restraints
The U.S SUPREME COURT has ruled that an unnecessarily suggestive identification proce-dure is a violation of due process (Stovall v Denno, 388 U.S 293, 87 S Ct 1967, 18 L Ed 2d 1199 (1967)) Evidence from such an identification should be excluded from a trial
of the suspect A show-up is inherently sugges-tive because police generally do not present to a witness a person whom they believe is innocent
of wrongdoing Nevertheless, show-ups do not violate due process if they are conducted near the scene of the crime and shortly after the crime was committed
Show-ups are a valuable and practical tool
in apprehending criminals If a witness affirma-tively identifies a suspect as the perpetrator of a crime, police can detain the suspect without delay to serve the interests of public safety If a witness fails to identify the subject of a show-up
as the perpetrator, the show-up will result in the quick release of the innocent suspect and allow
198 SHOW CAUSE ORDER
Trang 2APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR REISSUANCE OF ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Show Cause Order
NAME OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY (and state bar number if attorney):
ADDRESS WHERE YOU WANT MAIL SENT:
TELEPHONE NO.: FAX NO (Optional):
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
ATTORNEY FOR (Name):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
STREET ADDRESS:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY AND ZIP CODE:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT:
CASE NUMBER:
1 Plaintiff Petitioner (name):
requests the court to reissue the Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order ("Order to Show Cause") originally issued
as follows:
a Order to Show Cause was issued on (date):
b Order to Show Cause was last set for hearing on (date):
c Order to Show Cause has been reissued previously (number of times):
2 Plaintiff Petitioner requests reissuance of the Order to Show Cause because
a defendant respondent was unable to be served as required before the hearing date.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
3 THE COURT ORDERS that the Order to Show Cause issued as shown in item 1 above is reissued and reset for hearing in this court as
follows:
a Date: Time: Dept.: Room:
at the street address of the court shown above.
b By the close of business on the date of this order, a copy of this order and any proof of service must be given to the law
enforcement agencies named in the Order to Show Cause as follows:
(1) Plaintiff Petitioner must deliver.
(2) Plaintiff's Petitioner's attorney must deliver.
(3) The clerk of the court must deliver.
c A copy of this order must be attached to documents to be served on defendant, as directed in the Order to Show Cause, and must
be served on defendant with the Order to Show Cause.
d ALL OTHER ORDERS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNLESS MODIFIED
BY THIS ORDER The Order to Show Cause and this Order expire on the date and time of the hearing shown in the box above
unless extended by the court.
Date:
JUDICIAL OFFICER
Form Approved for Optional Use
Judicial Council of California
CIV-025 [Rev January 1, 2007]
APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR REISSUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Code Civ Proc.,
§ 527(d)(5)
CIV-025
FOR COURT USE ONLY
A sample show cause order.
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING.
SHOW CAUSE ORDER 199
Trang 3police to redirect their efforts A show-up should be conducted shortly after a crime has been committed If police do not apprehend a suspect until the next day, or several days or weeks afterward, they will have time to conduct
a traditional, in-person line-up
A police line-up is a procedure in which the crime victim or witness identifies the suspect through confirmation that can be counted as evidence at the trial During a line-up, the suspect and other individuals of similar com-plexion, build, age, height, hair color, and other similar physical qualities stand facing and profiling the identifier The person who is making the identification views everyone from behind a one-way mirror for protection and confirms or denies the identification of the suspect in the line-up One exception is when a traditional line-up is impractical For example,
if the sole witness to a crime is bedridden and approaching death, police may bring the suspect
to the victim even if the crime occurred several days before the show-up (Stovall)
Another type of line-up is a photo line-up
During a traditional photo line-up, photographs
of the suspect and other individuals are shown
to the victim or witness If they successfully identify the suspect, the identification is consid-ered valid Generally, a police officer shows a set
of photographs to the identifier and asks whether they recognize one of the persons in the photographs as the perpetrator A positive identification of a suspect can be used to place the suspect under arrest, and the act of identification may be used later as evidence in the prosecution of the DEFENDANT Photo line-ups are only admissible in court if they are conducted fairly Law enforcement officials may not persuade the witness in any way when they are identifying the suspect Additionally, the line-up should always include persons with very similar physical attributes
A show-up should not be performed for a witness unless the witness has displayed an ability to make a clear identification of the perpetrator of the crime A show-up for a witness who cannot cite any identifying char-acteristics of the perpetrator may be unneces-sarily suggestive and may be excluded from a subsequent trial of the suspect
Because a show-up generally involves de-tention of a criminal suspect, police must have
a reasonable suspicion that the suspect
committed a crime before subjecting the suspect
to a show-up This is a low level of certainty and need only be supported by enough articulable facts to lead a reasonable officer to believe that the suspect may have committed a crime CROSS REFERENCES
Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Line-up; Photo Line-up.
SIC Latin, In such manner; so; thus
A misspelled or incorrect word in a quotation followed by“[sic]” in square brackets indicates that the error appeared in the original source It is often used as an editorial disclaimer
to show the reader that the writer recognizes the error (and thus does not want the error attributed to him or her) and also to allow a precise and verbatim quotation, down to the last detail
SICK CHICKEN CASE SeeSCHECHTER POULTRY CORP.V.UNITED STATES
SIERRA CLUB The Sierra Club is a nonprofit, member-supported PUBLIC INTEREST organization that promotes conservation of the natural environ-ment by influencingPUBLIC POLICY decisions It consists of the national organization, located in San Francisco, California, 65 chapters, and approximately 365 local groups In addition, the Sierra Club organizes participation in wilderness activities for its members, including mountain climbing, backpacking, and camping
It is the oldest and largest nonprofit, grassroots environmental organization in the world, with more than 1.3 million members as of 2009 The organization was founded on June 4,
1892, by a group of 162 California residents The Sierra Club’s first president was John Muir,
a pioneer in the promotion of national parks and the protection of the environment Muir involved the club in political action, leading a successful fight to preserve Yosemite as a national park Muir and the club also lobbied for the creation of national parks at the Grand Canyon and Mount Rainier in the late nine-teenth century The Sierra Club drew national attention during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, when Muir got the presi-dent interested in creating more national parks
200 SIC
Trang 4The Sierra Club did not seek members
outside of California until 1950, when
mem-bership stood at 10,000 Memmem-bership has
increased dramatically since that time, due in
large part to the club’s intense interest in
protecting the environment Since 1970 the
club has played a major role in gaining
legislative support for many federal
environ-mental protection measures, including the
establishment of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCYand the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
and the passage of the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT,
the CLEAN AIR ACT, the CLEAN WATER ACT, the
National Forest Management Act, and the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act The Sierra Club has also campaigned for
similar state legislation
During the 1990s the Sierra Club filed
lawsuits seeking to require the federal
govern-ment to enforce provisions of the Endangered
Species Act and the Clean Air Act The
organization also protested global trade that
did not include adequate environmental
pro-tection controls In the early 2000s the Sierra
Club also advocated for the cleanup of toxic
wastes, resolution of the problems of solid waste
disposal, promotion of sustainable population
and family planning, and reversal of ozone
depletion and global warming In 2003, the
Sierra Club highlighted the evasion of state and
local pollution controls by many of the nation’s
“animal factories,” sprawling establishments
where thousands of animals are produced and
housed in strict confinement before being
transported to slaughterhouses
The Sierra Club was active in the 2004
and 2008 presidential elections, airing
televi-sion advertisements about the major party
candidates’ positions on environmental issues
Through the Environmental Voter Education
Campaign (EVEC), the Sierra Club sought to
mobilize volunteers for phone banking,
door-to-door canvassing, and postcard writing to
emphasize these issues in the campaign
The Sierra Club is currently governed by a
15-member volunteer board of directors Each
year, five directors are elected to three-year
terms, and all club members are eligible to
vote A president is elected annually by the
board from among its members and receives a
small stipend The executive director runs the
day-to-day operations of the group and is a paid
staff member
FURTHER READINGS Burton, Lloyd 2002 Worship and Wilderness: Culture, Religion, and Law in Public Lands Management.
Madison: Univ of Wisconsin Press.
Clifton, Carr 1990 Wild by Law: The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and the Places It Has Saved San Francisco:
Sierra Club Books.
Ehrlich, Gretel 2000 John Muir: Nature’s Visionary.
Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.
Sierra Club Available online at www.sierraclub.org (accessed November 21, 2009).
CROSS REFERENCES Environmental Law; Environmental Protection Agency.
SIGHT DRAFT
A COMMERCIAL PAPERthat is payable upon present-ment
When a draft or bill of exchange is payable
at sight, money may be immediately collected upon presentment to the drawee named in the instrument
SIGNATURE
A mark or sign made by an individual on an ins-trument or document to signify knowledge, ap-proval, acceptance, or obligation
The term signature is generally understood
to mean the signing of a written document with one’s own hand However, it is not critical that
a signature actually be written by hand for it to
be legally valid It may, for example, be typewritten, engraved, or stamped The purpose
of a signature is to authenticate a writing, or provide notice of its source, and to bind the individual signing the writing by the provisions contained in the document
Because a signature can obligate a party to terms of a contract or verify that the person intended to make a last will and testament, the law has developed rules that govern what constitutes a legally valid signature The INTER-NETand other forms of telecommunication have created the need to transact legally binding agreements electronically Almost all states have passed laws that recognize the validity of“digital signatures.”
Requisites and Validity
When an instrument must be signed, it is ordinarily adequate if the signature is made in any commonly used manner Variations be-tween the signature and the name appearing in
SIGNATURE 201
Trang 5the body of the instrument do not automatically invalidate the instrument
In the absence of a statutory prohibition, an individual can use any character, symbol, figure,
or designation he wishes to adopt as a signature, and if he uses it as a substitute for his name, he
is bound by it For example, if a contract refers
to “William Jones” but Jones signs his name
“Bill Jones,” the contract is still enforceable against him An individual can also use a fic-titious name or the name of a business firm A signature might also be adequate to validate an instrument even if it is virtually illegible The entire name does not have to be written, and the inclusion of a middle name is not significant
An individual satisfies the signing require-ment when someone who has been duly authorized to sign for him does so In the event
a statute mandates an instrument be signed in person, the signature must be made in the signer’s own hand or at his request and in his presence by another individual
In a situation where an individual intends to sign as a witness but instead inadvertently signs the instrument in the place where the principal
is to sign, the fact that he should have signed as
a witness can be shown Conversely when a signer intends to sign as a principal but instead signs in the place for a witness, that fact can also
be shown
Abbreviations, Initials, or Mark
In situations that do not require a more com-plete signature, an instrument can be properly signed when the initial letter or letters of the given name or names are used together with the surname (J Doe), when only the full surname
is used (Doe), when only the given name is used (John), or even when only the initials are used (J D.)
A mark is ordinarily a cross or X made in substitution for the signature of an individual who is unable to write In the absence of contrary statutory provision, a mark can be used by an individual who knows how to write but is unable to do so because of a physical illness or disability A mark has the same binding effect upon the individual making it
as does a signature In some statutes a signature
is defined as including a mark made by an individual who is infirm or illiterate
Generally the name of the person who makes his mark can be written by anyone, and
the mark is not necessarily invalidated because the individual writing the name accompany-ing the mark misspells the name In the absence
of a statute that requires a name to accompany the mark, the validity of the mark as a signature
is not affected by the fact that a name does not accompany it
When a mark is used as a signature, it can be put wherever the signature can appear When there is a requirement that the name must accompany the mark, the fact that the mark and the name are not in immediate proximity does not invalidate the mark
Certain statutes mandate that a witness must attest to a signature made by a mark Under such statutes, if the mark is not properly witnessed, the instrument is not signed and is legally ineffective These laws were enacted to prevent FRAUD, because it is difficult, if not impossible, to later determine if the alleged signer actually made the mark
Hand of Party or Another
A signature can be written by the hand of the purported signer, either through the signer’s unaided efforts or with the aid of another individual who guides the signer’s pen or pencil
In cases when the maker’s hand is guided or steadied, the signature is the maker’s act, not the act of the assisting individual
A signature can generally be made by one individual for another in his presence and at his direction, or with his assent, unless prohibited
by statute A signature that is made in this manner is valid, and the individual writing the name is regarded merely as an instrument through which the party whose signature is written exercises personal discretion and acts for himself
Method
Ordinarily a signature can be affixed in a number of different ways It can be hand written, printed, stamped, typewritten, engraved, or photographed This allows, for example, a business to issue its payroll checks with the signature of its financial officer stamped rather than handwritten
Digital Signatures
The computer and TELECOMMUNICATIONS have changed how work is done and how it is exchanged Both business and the legal system
202 SIGNATURE
Trang 6have begun to explore ways of using the Internet
and other forms of electronic communication to
transact work Court systems cannot permit the
electronic filing of legal documents, however,
unless the documents have been authenticated as
coming from the sender Similarly, businesses
will not enter into contracts using the Internet or
E-MAILunless they can authenticate that the other
contracting party actually made the agreement
Computers and digital scanners can reproduce
handwritten signatures, but they are susceptible
to forgery
A solution has been the legal recognition of
“digital signatures.” The majority of states have
enacted statutes that allow digital signatures in
intrastate transactions In 2000 President BILL
CLINTON signed into law the Electronic
Signa-tures in Global and National Commerce Act,
Pub L No 106-229, 114 Stat 464, also called
the E-Sign Act, which essentially validates
electronic contracts in interstate and foreign
commerce The act does not apply to certain
types of documents, including wills, DIVORCE
notices, and documents that are associated with
court proceedings
A digital signature is based on cryptography,
which uses mathematical formulas, or
algo-rithms, to scramble messages Using encryption
and decryption software, the sender can
scram-ble the message and the recipient can
unscram-ble it To affix a digital signature to an electronic
document, a signer must obtain electronic
“keys.” The keys are assigned in pairs: a private
key and a public key
A person creates his keys using a software
program The digital signature is affixed to the
electronic document using the private key The
“signer” types in a password, similar to a
personal identification number for an
auto-matic teller machine The private key then
generates a long string of numbers and letters
that represent the digital signature, or public
key The recipient of the message runs a
software program using this public key to
authenticate that the document was signed by
the private key and that the document has not
been altered during transmission
It is mathematically infeasible for a person
to derive another person’s private key The only
way to compromise a digital signature is to give
another person access to the signature software
and the password to the private key
FURTHER READINGS Hurewitz, Barry J., and Bipassa Nadon 2002 “Electronic Signature Standards Create Contracting Options ” Jour-nal of Internet Law 6 (September).
Mason, Stephen 2007 Electronic Signatures in Law 2d ed.
United Kingdom: Tottel Publishing.
Saunders, Margot 2003 “A Case Study of the Challenge of Designing Effective Electronic Consumer Credit Dis-closures: The Interim Rule for the Truth in Lending Act ” North Carolina Banking Institute 7 (April).
Whitaker, R David 2003 “An Overview of Some Rules and Principles for Delivering Consumer Disclosures Elec-tronically ” North Carolina Banking Institute 7 (April).
White House Office of the Press Secretary 2000 “Elimi-nating Barriers to Electronic Commerce While Protect-ing Consumers: The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act ” June 30.
Wims, Michael D 1995 “Law and the Electronic Highway:
Are Computer Signatures Legal? ” Criminal Justice 10 (spring).
CROSS REFERENCE Authentication.
SIMPLE Unmixed; not aggravated or compounded
A simple assault, for example, is one that is not accompanied by any circumstances of aggravation, such as assault with a deadly weapon
Simple interest is a fixed amount paid in exchange for a sum of money lent The interest generated on the amount borrowed does not itself earn interest, unlike interest earned where parties agree to compound interest
SIMPSON, O J
The criminal and civil trials of Orenthal James (“O J.”) Simpson, a former football star, actor, and television personality, regarding the mur-ders of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman, a local restaurant waiter, were two of the most controversial and highly publicized proceedings in U.S LEGAL HISTORY The lengthy criminal trial, which ended in Simpson’s ACQUITTAL for the two murders in October 1995, was nationally televised In the civil trial, in which the estates of the twoMURDER
victims sued Simpson for damages for the victims’ WRONGFUL DEATHS, a jury in February
1997 awarded the heirs of the victims a total
of $33.5 million In both proceedings, but especially in the criminal trial, the issue of race played a dominant role Simpson, an African American, was portrayed by his attor-neys as another victim of the racist beliefs
SIMPSON, O J 203
Trang 7and behavior of members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)
In the early hours of June 13, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found lying in a pool of blood outside Nicole Simpson’s Brentwood, Califor-nia, condominium Both victims had been brutally stabbed to death on the evening of June 12, but there were no eyewitnesses After the slayings, Nicole Simpson’s dog was found wandering around the upscale neighborhood with bloody paws
Simpson voluntarily gave an interview to LAPD detectives the day after the murder Five days after the murders, LAPD charged Simpson with the deaths, citing a trail of evidence they said linked the celebrity to the crime scene, including a bloody glove found outside the condominium that allegedly matched one found at Simpson’s estate On the day Simpson was to surrender to police, he and a friend, Al C
Cowlings, disappeared Simpson left behind a note professing his love for Nicole, claiming his innocence, and implying that he would commit suicide Police traced calls from Simp-son’s cellular phone, locating him in a vehicle traveling on a Los Angeles freeway The ensuing slow-speed chase, which was nationally televised from helicopter cameras, ended back at Simp-son’s Brentwood home, where he was arrested
Simpson’s criminal trial began on January
25, 1995 He had assembled a team of lawyers that included ROBERT L SHAPIRO; JOHNNIE L
COCHRAN JR., a leading Los Angeles defense
attorney; F LEE BAILEY, a nationally known criminal defense attorney; ALAN M DERSHOWITZ,
a Harvard law professor; Gerald F Uelman, the dean of Stanford University Law School; and Barry Scheck and Peter J Neufeld, New York attorneys skilled in handlingDNA EVIDENCE The group of prosecutors from the Los Angeles county attorney’s office was led by MARCIA R
CLARKand Christopher A Darden Presiding at the trial was Superior Court Judge Lance A Ito
In its opening statements the prosecution argued that Simpson’s history of DOMESTIC VIOLENCEagainst Nicole Brown Simpson showed
a link to her murder His pattern of abuse and his need to control his former wife culminated, according to Clark, in her murder, “the final and ultimate act of control.” Goldman was murdered, continued Clark, because he got in the way, arriving at the Brentwood condomin-ium to return a pair of misplaced eyeglasses at the same time that Simpson was attacking Nicole Brown Simpson
The defense team, which Cochran domi-nated, asserted that the LAPD fabricated the physical evidence and that Simpson had been
on his way to a golf outing in Chicago when the crimes were committed
The prosecution presented the testimony of neighbors in the vicinity of the murder scene and of a limousine driver who arrived early at Simpson’s home that night to establish that Simpson had time to commit the murders and return home shortly after the driver arrived It also introduced the “bloody glove” found behind Simpson’s guest house, a glove that matched one found at the crime scene The prosecution called DNA experts to testify that blood found at the crime scene matched Simpson’s blood and that blood from both of the victims was found in Simpson’s vehicle and
on socks found in his bedroom In addition, a bloody shoe print found at the crime scene appeared to match an expensive brand of shoes that Simpson had owned, but which could not
be found
The defense team aggressively challenged almost every prosecution witness but leveled its harshest attacks on the credibility of the LAPD Scheck attacked the way the blood and fiber evidence was collected and suggested that the police had used blood from a sample given by the defendant to concoct false evidence Scheck and Neufeld also challenged the credibility of
The murder trial of
former football great
O.J Simpson was
among the most
highly publicized
trials in U.S history.
Simpson was
acquitted of murder
but was later
sentenced to at least
nine years in prison
after his involvement
in an armed robbery.
AP IMAGES
204 SIMPSON, O J.
Trang 8the prosecution’s DNA experts, subjecting the
jury to weeks of highly technical discussion of
DNA analysis
The defense also argued that the police had
rushed to judgment that Simpson was the prime
suspect Cochran and Bailey cross-examined the
police officers who had gone to Simpson’s
home early on the morning after the murders
These officers had not sought aSEARCH WARRANT
but went into the residence based on the belief
that Simpson himself might have been the target
of the murderer The defense challenged this
justification and attempted to show that one of
the officers, Mark Fuhrman, was a racist who
planted the bloody glove that morning Events
in the trial confirmed that Fuhrman had
lied under oath when he said he had not said
the word “nigger” in the past ten years As
the prosecution case proceeded, the defense
used every opportunity to demonstrate to the
predominantly African American jury that the
police had engaged in a CONSPIRACY to frame
Simpson
The dramatic point of the trial was the
prosecution’s request that Simpson try on the
bloody gloves Simpson, wearing thin plastic
gloves, strained to pull on the leather gloves and
announced that they were too small and did not
fit This proved to be a damaging incident for
the prosecution In his CLOSING ARGUMENT,
Cochran repeatedly stated, “If the gloves don’t
fit, you must acquit.”
In October 1995, after 266 days of trial, the
jury found Simpson not guilty of the murders
Cochran, in his closing argument, had implored
the jury to acquit Simpson and send a message
to the LAPD and white America that African
Americans should not be the victims of a racist
police and justice system According to opinion
polls, his argument sounded a strong chord in
African Americans, because a majority of them
believed that Simpson was innocent Polls also
showed that, in contrast, most whites believed
that Simpson was guilty
Despite the acquittal, Simpson had to
defend himself in a civil lawsuit filed by the
parents of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald
Goldman In contrast to the criminal trial, the
civil case was not televised, thereby reducing the
intensity of the press coverage In addition, the
plaintiffs had the opportunity to depose many
witnesses before trial, including Simpson, who
did not testify at the criminal trial
The plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Daniel M
Petrocelli, fiercely examined Simpson at the
DEPOSITION and again at the trial, pointing out the inconsistencies in his various accounts
Petrocelli mocked Simpson’s contention that
he had never beaten Nicole Brown Simpson, despite police reports, photographs, and testi-mony of other witnesses The most crucial piece
of evidence became the bloody shoe print at the crime scene At his deposition Simpson said he had never owned a pair of the “ugly-assed shoes” that had made the shoe print Simpson repeated this claim at trial, but Petrocelli produced thirty-one photographs of Simpson
at public events showing that he had indeed worn the exact model of shoes prior to the murders Finally Petrocelli argued that Simpson committed the murders because he could not control his temper: When Nicole Brown Simpson rejected him for good in the spring
of 1994, he erupted in the same uncontrollable rage that had caused him to lash out at her in the past, only this time he used a knife
In February 1997 the jury awarded the plaintiffs $8.5 million inCOMPENSATORY DAMAGES
and $25 million in PUNITIVE DAMAGES The jury awarded the punitive damages based on an expert’s testimony that Simpson could earn $25 million over the rest of his life by trading on his notoriety with book deals, movie contracts, speaking tours, and memorabilia sales The jury did not want Simpson to profit from the crimes
Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki, who had conducted the trial, upheld the damages award
Simpson announced that he planned to appeal the case
The plaintiffs obtained a court order permitting the seizure of many of Simpson’s assets to pay the multimillion-dollar judgment
Simpson, who had regained custody of his two children that he had with Nicole Brown Simpson, claimed he was near financial insol-vency Nevertheless, the plaintiffs’ attorneys returned to court numerous times in 1997 seeking disclosure of Simpson’s assets, contend-ing that he was attemptcontend-ing to hide them
More than 14 years after the initial trial, Simpson re-entered the news when he was convicted on a variety of charges stemming from his role in breaking into a hotel room in
an effort to retrieve memorabilia The Nevada judge who presided over the case showed no mercy for Simpson, sentencing the celebrity to
SIMPSON, O J 205
Trang 933 years in prison Simpson would not be eligible for parole for nine years
Many of Simpson’s items of value, including his Heisman Trophy, were sold at auction to satisfy the Goldman judgment A market existed for Simpson items, due in large part to the novelty of having items that once belonged to the disgraced star During the first decade of the 2000s, Simpson attempted to write a book, entitled If I Did It, which Simpson said was a hypothetical account of how he might have committed the murders In June 2007 a federal bankruptcy judge in Miami awarded the rights
to the book to the Goldman family The Goldman family retitled the book as If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer and published the book on September 13, 2007
As the Goldmans aggressively pursued the items, Simpson continued his efforts to hide personal possessions At one point, Simpson’s former manager, Mike Gilbert, allegedly removed several valuables from Simpson’s home so that the Goldmans could not recover the items On the same day that the Goldmans published If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer, Simpson and five others convened at the Palace Station hotel-casino in Las Vegas Simpson forcibly entered the room of two memorabilia dealers named Alfred Beardsley and Bruce Fromong, who allegedly purchased the items from Gilbert Another memorability dealer named Thomas Riccio secretly recorded the break-in, during at least one of the men brandished a gun Fromong later said that Simpson never brandished a gun
However, Riccio maintained that Simpson was the one who organized the break-in, which lasted about five or six minutes
Within days, Simpson and his accomplices were arrested and charged with several crimes, including kidnapping and armed robbery On September 19, Simpson was freed on $125,000 bail, after which he returned to his home in Florida Within a month, three of Simpson’s accomplices agreed to plea deals that would require them to testify against Simpson On November 14, 2007, Simpson and two accom-plices were charged with 12 crimes, to which the defendants pleaded not guilty One, Charles Ehrlich, eventually agreed to testify against Simpson in a plea bargain
Simpson had been ordered not to contact his co-defendants, but he violated this order by leaving a message for one with a bail bondsman
On January 16, 2008, Judge Jackie Glass repri-manded Simpson and doubled Simpson’s bail
Up to this time, it appeared to be questionable whether the prosecution would move forward The witnesses had given conflicting accounts of the incident, and most involved were perceived
to be shady characters
Nevertheless, on September 15, 2008, the trial began Simpson’s lawyers attempted to discredit the witnesses and tried to convince the jury that Simpson’s motive was simply to retrieve items that belonged to him Simpson did not testify during the trial, which some experts said was a mistake At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated for 13 hours before rendering its verdict Simpson and Stewart were both found guilty on all 12 counts, including kidnapping, armed robbery, conspir-acy, coercion, BURGLARY, and assault with a deadly weapon
At his sentencing hearing, Simpson gave a rambling speech during which he said,“I didn’t want to steal anything from anyone I’m sorry, sorry.” Despite Simpson’s plea, Judge Glass showed no leniency On December 5, Glass sentenced Simpson to a maximum of 33 years in prison He is currently serving time at Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada In a twist of fate, the items that Simpson sought to retrieve from the memora-bilia dealers ended up in the hands of Goldman When Simpson was sentenced, Goldman told reporters,“We are thrilled, and it’s a bittersweet moment It was satisfying seeing him in shackles like he belongs.”
FURTHER READINGS Alschuler, Albert W 1998 “How to Win the Trial of the Century: The Ethics of Lord Brougham and the O.J Simpson Defense Team McGeorge Law Review 29 (spring).
Cotterill, Janet 2003 Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J Simpson Trial New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dershowitz, Alan M 1997 Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J Simpson Case New York: Simon & Schuster.
Schuetz, Janice, and Lin S Lilley, ed 1999 The O.J Simpson Trials: Rhetoric, Media, and the Law Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ Press.
Stuntz, William J 2001 “O.J Simpson, Bill Clinton, and the Transsubstantive Fourth Amendment.” Harvard Law Review 114 (January).
CROSS REFERENCES Cameras in Court; DNA Evidence.
206 SIMPSON, O J.
Trang 10SIMULTANEOUS DEATH
Loss of life by two or more individuals
concur-rently or pursuant to circumstances that render it
impossible to ascertain who predeceased whom
The issue of who died first frequently arises
in cases determining the inheritance of property
from spouses who die simultaneously Generally
the answer must be derived from all the
surrounding circumstances At COMMON LAW,
the law would not intervene and make the
assumption that one individual or another had
died first but would await proof, no matter how
slight that might be Since this created a problem
when no satisfactory proof existed, various states
enacted statutes allowing judges to presume that
one individual survived another under certain
circumstances
Because those state statutes that created
presumptions proved inadequate, a majority of
the states enacted the Uniform Simultaneous
Death Act Although some slight variations exist
from one state to another, the law essentially
provides that property will be inherited or
distributed as if each person had outlived the
other This prevents the property from passing
into the estate of a second person who is already
deceased only to be distributed immediately
from that estate, a wasteful procedure that
precipitates additional LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, costs,
and estate taxes
The Simultaneous Death Act cannot be
applied if evidence exists that one individual
outlived the other The act only applies when it
cannot be determined who died first Ordinarily
the persons involved need not have died in a
COMMON DISASTERbut might have died in different
places and under different circumstances, and it
still might be impossible to prove that one
survived the other A 1985 Illinois case provides
an example of where Simultaneous Death Act
was held inapplicable because the court found it
possible to ascertain who died first
Janus v Tarasewicz, 135 Ill.App.3d 936, 482
N.E.2d 418, 90 Ill.Dec 599 (Ill App 1 Dist
1985) arose out of a freakish series of events that
began in the Chicago area in 1982 Adam Janus
unluckily purchased a bottle of Tylenol capsules
that had been laced with cyanide by an
unknown perpetrator prior to its sale at retail
On the evening of September 29, 1982, the day
of Adam’s death, his brother, Stanley Janus, and
Stanley’s wife, Theresa Janus, having just
returned from their honeymoon, gathered in
mourning at Adam’s home with other family members Not yet knowing how Adam died, Stanley and Theresa innocently compounded the tragedy by taking some of the contaminated capsules themselves Upon their arrival at the intensive care unit of a hospital emergency room, neither showed visible vital signs Hospi-tal personnel never succeeded in establishing any spontaneous blood pressure, pulse, or signs
of respiration in Stanley and pronounced him dead Hospital personnel did succeed in estab-lishing a measurable, though unsatisfactory, blood pressure in Theresa Although she had very unstable vital signs, remained in a coma, and had fixed and dilated pupils, she was placed
on a mechanical respirator and remained on the respirator for two days before she was pro-nounced dead on October 1, 1982
Stanley had a $100,000 life-insurance policy that named Theresa as primary BENEFICIARY and his mother, Alojza Janus, as contingent benefi-ciary The 1953 version of the Uniform Simulta-neous Death Act, in force in Illinois, provides that if there is no sufficient evidence that the insured and beneficiary have died otherwise than simultaneously, the proceeds of the policy shall
be distributed as if the insured had survived the beneficiary The Illinois Court of Appeals held the act to be inapplicable because a PREPONDER-ANCE OF THE EVIDENCE established that Theresa survived Stanley, albeit by only a couple of days
The result: The proceeds of Stanley’s $100,000 policy did not go to his mother, Alojza, as contingent beneficiary, but to Theresa’s father, Jan Tarasewicz, as administrator of her estate
The BURDEN OF PROOF is on the person alleging survivorship of a decedent, and the degree of proof is the preponderance of the evidence In re Estate of Miller 840 So.2d 703 (Miss 2003) Survivorship may be proven by direct orCIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and the issue
is one of fact for the trial court’s determination
In re Estates of Perry 40 P.3d 492 (Okla Civ
App Div 3 2001) The minimum evidence required to sustain the burden of proof is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a positive sign of life in one body and the absence of any such sign in the other after an examination of both bodies has been made It is necessary to prove only that one party survived the other by
at least one second There is no presumption that one victim survived another, based on age, sex, and physical condition, although such facts,
SIMULTANEOUS DEATH 207