I know, I've been a juror in a civil trial. The main difference is the jury just has to deterim the defendent is 50.1% responsible for their crime to be found guilty. Nevertheless in this case the evidence that came out in the civil trial that didn't or should have come out in the first trial is what hung O.J. Probably the most damning being the lie detector test that O.J. failed right after commiting the murders, and was allowed to be used in the civil trial. Your also not allowed to invoke the 5th amendment in a civil trail. So OJ also had to testify. And he didn't do a very good job of it. Also, I don't know if it was ever introduced in the civil trial, but the 15 inch stilleto knife that O.J. purchased just prior to the murders wouldn't have helped his case if it had been introduced as evidence in the first trial. Oh well, chalk one up for Johhny Cochran, who also did a good job of making a racial issue out of it when race had nothing to do with it.A civil court does not demand the same standard (level) of evidence as does a criminal trial.
I think the joke of it is....the glove that "didn't fit" should have never been allowed into evidence. When Fuhrman took the other detectives to OJ's house and saw his Bronco parked escew, it never was if you saw the pictures, he climbed over the wall. They then found the glove in back of the guest house.
If the judge ruled it was an illegal search and seizure...like she should have.....the glove would have never been admitted into evidence.