Could O.J. Simpson get another trial?

Answers to your questions about the news.
Nov. 15 2006 6:35 PM

Could O.J. Go to Court Again?

If he did it, here's what might happen.

Download the MP3 audio version of this story here, or sign up for The Explainer's free daily podcast on iTunes.

Later this month, O.J. Simpson will appear on Fox in a two-hour special called If I Did It, Here's How It Happened. According to a news release, Simpson will explain "how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade." Could O.J. go back to court because of something he says on TV?

It's not impossible. The Bill of Rights protects Simpson from being tried twice for the same crime. But double jeopardy protection isn't absolute, and a criminal who's acquitted once could still end up behind bars. Here are a few scenarios that might result in Simpson's return to court.

Daniel Engber Daniel Engber

Daniel Engber is a columnist for Slate


1. They could go after him for lying. California prosecutors can't retry O.J. for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. They are free to haul him back before a judge if they think he committed another crime—like perjury, or lying to the police.

Actual risk to O.J.:None. Simpson never actually testified under oath at his own trial. At one point, he did announce to the court, "I did not, could not, and would not have committed this crime," but he wasn't on the witness stand. (Click here for an audio clip.)

He'd be in the clear even if he had lied on the stand. The statute of limitations for perjury in California is three years, and the Simpson trial ended more than a decade ago. Likewise, any criminal liability O.J. might have for obstructing the duties of California police officers would have lapsed many years ago.

2.Thefeds could charge him with civil rights violations. The principle of "dual sovereignty" overrides Simpson's double-jeopardy protections. That means he could be tried in federal court for the same crimes he was acquitted of in state court. The precedent for this goes back to 1922, when a gang of Washington moonshiners were prosecuted under both state and federal prohibition laws. (Crimes that occur in multiple states are also subject to double prosecution.)

Actual risk to O.J.: Minimal. It turns out there's no statute of limitations on federal civil rights cases involving murder. In theory, federal prosecutors could go after O.J. at any time under Title 18, Section 242 or Section 245.

But it's very unlikely that the Justice Department would press civil rights charges. First, the department's "Petite Policy" strongly discourages prosecutors from pursuing cases that have already been tried in state court. Second, it would be hard to make a civil rights charge stick, given the facts of the case: O.J. isn't a government employee; the victims weren't murdered on public property; and there's no evidence of a hate crime.

That's not to say it couldn't happen. In 1984, the feds stepped in and convicted a California Highway Patrolman of civil rights violations for murdering an actress two years before. (His trials in state court had ended in hung juries.) In the 1990s, a federal court in Los Angeles convicted two of the police officers who had been acquitted in state court for the videotaped beating of Rodney King.

3. Someone could go after him for fraud. If Simpson confesses his guilt on national television, it's possible that he'd be on the hook for any money he made as a result of maintaining his innocence for the past 11 years.



More Than Scottish Pride

Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 

What Charles Barkley Gets Wrong About Corporal Punishment and Black Culture

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

Three Talented Actresses in Three Terrible New Shows

Why Do Some People See the Virgin Mary in Grilled Cheese?

The science that explains the human need to find meaning in coincidences.


Happy Constitution Day!

Too bad it’s almost certainly unconstitutional.

Is It Worth Paying Full Price for the iPhone 6 to Keep Your Unlimited Data Plan? We Crunch the Numbers.

What to Do if You Literally Get a Bug in Your Ear

  News & Politics
Sept. 16 2014 7:03 PM Kansas Secretary of State Loses Battle to Protect Senator From Tough Race
Sept. 16 2014 2:35 PM Germany’s Nationwide Ban on Uber Lasted All of Two Weeks
The Vault
Sept. 16 2014 12:15 PM “Human Life Is Frightfully Cheap”: A 1900 Petition to Make Lynching a Federal Offense
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus Video
Sept. 16 2014 2:06 PM A Farewell From Emily Bazelon The former senior editor talks about her very first Slate pitch and says goodbye to the magazine.
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 8:43 PM This 17-Minute Tribute to David Fincher Is the Perfect Preparation for Gone Girl
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 6:40 PM This iPhone 6 Feature Will Change Weather Forecasting
  Health & Science
Sept. 16 2014 1:39 PM The Case of the Missing Cerebellum How did a Chinese woman live 24 years missing part of her brain?
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 8:41 PM You’re Cut, Adrian Peterson Why fantasy football owners should release the Minnesota Vikings star.