Simpson Asks Court to Void $33.5-Million Civil Judgment

Attorneys for O.J. Simpson have submitted a brief to the state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles seeking a reversal of last year’s $33.5-million wrongful death verdict.

The brief pushes the case into its next phase, one in which the appellate court must determine whether Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki erred in his handling of the civil trial.

In the 96-page brief, Simpson attorneys Robert C. Baker and Daniel Patrick Leonard argue that the civil trial was “fundamentally tainted by several evidentiary rulings by the trial court.” Further, “the punitive and compensatory damage awards were excessive and the clear result of ‘passion and prejudice’ on the part of the jury.”

Peter Gelblum, attorney for Fred Goldman, father of victim Ronald Lyle Goldman, said the brief offers no surprises.

“The filing is not just expected but overdue,” Gelblum said. “We’ve been waiting for it. The arguments also are not unexpected. They’re the same arguments made in the trial court and rejected in the trial court, and we fully expect them to be rejected in the Court of Appeal.”

On Feb. 4, 1997, a civil jury found Simpson liable in the deaths of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. The jury ordered Simpson to pay $8.5 million to compensate Goldman’s parents, Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufo, and a combined $25 million in punitive damages to Goldman, Rufo and Simpson’s two children.

Denise Brown, Nicole Simpson’s sister, said she is not bothered by the appeal. Brown said her family is not trying to collect $12.5 million for themselves, but for Nicole’s children, Sydney and Justin.

Brown responded as she changed the name of the Nicole Brown Simpson Charitable Foundation, scraping the gold-leafed letters “Simpson” from the office doors in Dana Point. The foundation raises funds to support groups that shelter and provide rehabilitation and job training for victims of domestic violence.

“People in the past have always asked me why Simpson was in the name,” said Brown, who assumed control of the foundation in March after her father retired as chairman. “That was her name, and now it’s time to move forward.”

Simpson’s lawyers declined to comment on their appeal, but the brief, submitted June 30, contains a litany of alleged errors committed by Fujisaki during the five-month trial.

Baker and Leonard argue that the judge should not have permitted Goldman’s attorneys to introduce instances of “alleged abusive behavior by Simpson toward Brown” or “hearsay statements purportedly made by Brown which describe her fear of Simpson, threats allegedly made by him and descriptions of physical abuse.”

“This highly prejudicial hearsay was in the form of statements to police officers, writings by Brown and a call made by a person only identified as ‘Nicole’ to a battered women’s shelter.”

According to the lawyers, the judge wrongly limited testimony of an expert defense witness who “was prepared to testify that the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory’s own data concerning the validity of its DNA testing showed significant risk of contamination and potential for inaccurate test results.”

“This information was clearly relevant and Simpson should have been permitted to bring this to the attention of the jury,” the attorneys wrote.

The brief also questions Fujisaki’s exclusion of the recorded testimony of former Los Angeles Police Det. Mark Fuhrman at the criminal trial, his decision to allow questions about a polygraph test that Simpson allegedly failed, and his admission of testimony regarding Simpson’s monetary worth.

Gelblum said he would respond to the brief over the next few months.

Times correspondent Chris Ceballos contributed to this story.