By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
Am I confused, or is it happening all over again? I seem to recall a few years back that another celebrity (let’s call him the Heisman Trophy Guy) was found not guilty by a criminal jury and subsequently ordered to pay some $33 million by a civil jury for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. I guess the civil jury thought the Heisman guy did it after all. Now I know some of you are thinking, “Hey judge, you of all people should know there is a different standard of proof required in a criminal case-proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case only proof by a preponderance of evidence need be shown. And a judge should know that in a criminal case the jury is concerned with life in prison or death; in a civil case it’s all about money.”
OK, I’ll admit you’re right on both points. But I remind thee that in order to impose punitive damages in a civil trial it requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, vexatiously or maliciously. Clear and convincing evidence is strong proof as evidenced by $33 million jury awards.
As we all know by now, the Robert Blake civil jury this past Friday, after eight days of deliberation, has likewise spoken to the tune of $30 million, ascribing to Blake the responsibility for the death of his wife, Bonnie Lee Bakley. Something the criminal jury failed to see.
There are so many common elements between the Heisman Trophy Guy and Blake that my head is spinning, giving me the uncanny feeling that I (we) have been there before! I looked up the French phrase déjà vu and it suggested that this can relate to “an illusion of remembering scenes and events when experienced for the first time.” Well, that doesn’t fit the description for me as I distinctly remember walking this same path before-in this lifetime. So, I went further, and found that the French phrase jamais vu might possibly apply, but for the fact that this is a memory disorder characterized “by illusion that the familiar is being encountered for the first time.” Close, but no cigar. There was an explanation after all, the feeling that one has been there before is often due to the fact that one has been there before!
Both O.J. and Blake were celebrities, albeit minor ones. We don’t like to spank our celebrities too hard, unless it is absolutely clear, beyond all doubt (which is more than what is required to convict.) Then again, we did convict Martha. After all, she was successfully competing against the “fellahs.” In O.J. and Blake, the defendants did not testify in the criminal case, and thus their credibility was never tested through the time-honored crucible of cross-examination. The jury did not get to see and hear their stories first-hand, they were deprived of the ability to judge them in the harsh light of their numerous lies and inconsistencies. They couldn’t see the demeanor that would have belied their empty claims of innocence when pressed to explain how, for example, they both just happened to be so close in time and place to the execution slayings of their respective spouses. They didn’t get to hear how Blake would explain his running back to the restaurant (that no one verified) to get his gun so he could protect his wife from violence, while he left her in his car, alone and vulnerable, in darkness on a lonely street; why his two long-lost buddies (the stuntman twins) just happened to say Blake repeatedly asked them to kill his wife or why he told Christian Brando that “somebody might put a bullet in her head.” And how O.J. would adequately explain his rage and jealousy over Simpson’s suitors, or her rejection of him, or the DNA of his murdered wife, etc. And another déjà vu thing: they both trashed the innocent victims-their wives! That didn’t go over very well in either civil trial.
The Heisman Trophy Guy testified at his civil trial, as he was required to do, unlike the criminal trial, and the jury was moved to award $33 million to the Browns and the Goldmans for the wrongful death of Simpson and Goldman. In short, they found O.J. to be a liar and a killer. Blake also testified, as required. This time, the carefully crafted charade of humbleness was stripped away by the light of justice. His arrogance and his contempt for justice hung like a fungus in the courtroom. In its glare, as in O.J., a jury was able to see the transparency of Blake’s unbelievable story. This time, the jury was not fooled but angered, as in O.J., by the contemptible arrogance of the defendant and the transparency of his “civil” responsibility.
Yep, I guess it is déjà vu all over again. Maybe Blake will join forces with the Heisman Trophy Guy in searching for the real killers of their respective wives.