Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message      Back to index      Next message ==>
Sender:
Lionel Smith
Date:
Thu, 20 Feb 1997 11:25:47
Re:
Restitution for Wrongs

 

Nicola Shaw wrote:

The successful civil proceedings against OJ Simpson raise an interesting issue with regard to restitution for wrongdoing. Following his acquittal in the criminal trial, OJ has made significant profits from the sale of his book and from interviews on (primarily) the murder trial. If we accept a wider basis for giving restitution for torts and prima facie allow recovery for such a wrong, could the estates of the victims claim restitution for these profits?

The unusual feature is that the profits are derived from his acquittal for a wrong which on a reduced standard of proof he was found liable for. Is there any theory of remoteness in restitution for wrongdoing which might exclude such recovery - ie. does the fact that the profits stem from a previous trial and acquittal on those facts sever the connection between them and the wrongdoing as established by the subsequent civil suit?

I am sure there are remoteness limitations in restitution for wrongdoing, but I am not sure that they are of this sort. The tort having been proved, it seems to me that there could be a claim to the profits even if there had been a failed criminal prosecution. Remoteness and causation issues would be more along the lines of: causation: how much of the profit from the book derived from the writer's skill as opposed to the wrong? remoteness: what about the gains from a profitable investment made with the profits from the book?

It is also interesting to speculate what would have happened if he had been convicted. In this particular case there would be statutory provisions covering the profits of crime which might or might not make provision for victims, as opposed to state confiscation. In the absence of such, are there two wrongs and hence two claimants for disgorgement of profits? How would we divide or apportion the gains?

Lionel Smith
St. Hugh's College
Oxford, U.K.
OX2 6LE
Tel (0)1865 274 966; Fax (0)1865 274 912
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0014/lionel.html


<== Previous message      Back to index      Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !