 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Simpson v. Brown11/10/1998
As modified December 7, 1998. There is no change in judgment. Petition for rehearing denied.
GUARDIANSHIP OF SYDNEY SIMPSON ET AL., MINORS. ORENTHAL J. SIMPSON, PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT,
v.
LOUIS BROWN ET AL., OBJECTORS AND APPELLANTS.
Kimberly A. Knill and Natasha Roit for Objectors and Appellants. Meserve, Mumper & Hughes and Bernard A. Leckie for Petitioner and Respondent. Marjorie G. Fuller for Minors.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sills, P. J.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
(Super. Ct. No. A174254)
OPINION
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nancy Wieben Stock, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Stephen Temko and Paul Mones as amici curiae on behalf of Objectors and Appellants.
I. INTRODUCTION
A guardianship was established for Sydney and Justin Simpson after their father, O. J. Simpson, was jailed on the charge of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson, their mother, and another victim, Ron Goldman. We need not go into the details of the killings, but certain basic, well reported -- and undisputed --facts about them are unavoidably relevant to the proceeding before us now: Nicole's throat had been slit, and she had been left in a pool of blood at her own doorstep while her children, Sydney and Justin, lay sleeping in the house. It was only a happenstance that the neighbors discovered the body first, sparing the children the horror of finding their dead mother. Whoever committed this crime must have acted in extreme rage and anger and been oblivious to the possibility that the victim's children might discover her body.
After his acquittal in a criminal trial, Simpson requested termination of the guardianship. At the hearing on the termination, the guardians sought to introduce evidence regarding the circumstances of Nicole Simpson's murder. The trial court refused to consider any of it, holding that the guardians had waived the issue by not listing any "murder witnesses" on their witness list.
At the time of this guardianship proceeding, the father also faced a civil trial in which the plaintiffs sought to establish his liability for the death of the mother. The guardians' attorneys apparently hoped the civil case would conclude in time for the court to take note of its results, which would not only spare their clients great expense, but also save the court the necessity of a prolonged examination of the murder evidence. The court, however, did not wait for the Conclusion of the civil case (which, as is common knowledge, ended with a judgment of the father's liability), explaining in its written order that the civil case could not have thrown any light on the guardianship termination anyway, because, in its opinion, the civil case entailed a lower standard of proof than the one involved in the guardianship proceeding. In any event, that case is itself not yet final for issue preclusion purposes, so the trial court could not take judicial notice of its result.
While we understand the incredible pressure the court was under, the fact remains that it made a number of errors. These errors require reversal of the order terminating the guardianship.
First and foremost, the grisly circumstances of the murder itself simply could not be ignored, even if consideration of them would have taken some time. We acknowledge, of course, that consideration of the "murder issue" (as it is sometimes, rather understatedly, referred to in the briefs) would have necessitated a longer trial. However, because the cour
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|