ANALYSIS : OUTCOME WASN'T ONLY DIFFERENCE SEPARATING TRIALS.

Byline: Jaxon Van Derbeken Daily News Staff Writer

O.J. II had all the earmarks of a slam dunk for the plaintiffs.

There was O.J. Simpson's testimony, a last-minute windfall of photographic evidence and a series of favorable rulings by the judge.

With Mark Fuhrman safely ensconced in Idaho, unable to testify, there was no key witness to impeach.

So there was no race card.

And there were no dramatic courtroom scenes about a bloody glove and Johnnie Cochran Jr.'s mantra: ``If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!''

And this time, Simpson lost. In a unanimous verdict, the jury found Simpson liable for the slayings of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

While there was no TV this time, there was true drama in the revelation of 30 photographs that showed Simpson wearing the same kind of shoes as the killer - much more than a single photo that had been denounced as fakery.

The setting, a seaside courtroom in Santa Monica, seemed a world away from the chaotic first trial downtown, as did the mostly white makeup of the jury - compared to the criminal court jury with nine African-Americans.

The one African-American civil juror was removed after deliberations began for failing to disclose that her daughter worked for the District Attorney's Office. This jury went home after work; the criminal trial's jurors were sequestered in a hotel for months.

The plaintiffs had the advantage of using evidence the District Attorney's Office left out in the criminal trial, including the famous slow-speed Bronco chase as well as Simpson's statements to police.

No longer shielded by the Fifth Amendment, Simpson was compelled to testify - over four days in two rounds, once grilled by plaintiffs, a second time when he vouched for himself.

He denied he ever hit his ex-wife, denied he wore those Bruno Magli shoes, denied getting a call signaling a breakup with his girlfriend the morning of the killings. He contradicted accounts of witnesses as well as some of his own previous statements.

Simpson denied being in a dark mood the day of the June 12, 1994, killings and repeatedly denied that he stabbed his former spouse and her friend.

``The second trial hinged on O.J. Simpson's testimony,'' said Myrna Raeder, an evidence law professor at Southwestern University School of Law.

The civil case featured 41 days of testimony spread over 2-1/2 months; the criminal case took more than three times as long, with 133 days of testimony over nine months.

While 101 people testified in the civil case, 120 took the stand in the criminal trial. Many made rapid-fire appearances, with streamlined testimony that cut hours that stretched out the first trial.

``It went much smoother than the criminal case,'' said Professor Norman Garland of Southwestern University School of Law.

Jurors deliberated longer than their counterparts in the criminal trial, 11 hours compared to about four. In both cases, the jury had the testimony of limo driver Allan Park read back.

The stewards in each case were marked contrasts - Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki drove the civil case forward with a no-nonsense approach in which attorneys were silenced and television banned.

Judge Lance Ito, on the other hand, seemed to be unable to keep the sprawling case on track. Ito allowed the defense a wider leeway to suggest a conspiracy and cover-up.

In the second case, both sides benefited by having the first case as a trial run of the evidence. The plaintiffs had the benefit of the record to allow them to streamline the case to the jury and could enter depositions into the record when witnesses were unavailable.

Jurors resolved eight questions

in deliberations

Jurors in the wrongful death trial found O.J. Simpson liable for the killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and awarded the Goldmans $8.5 million in compensatory damages, by answering the following questions ``Yes.''

Questions: 1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?

2. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Ronald Goldman?

3. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman.

4. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman.

5. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

6. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

7. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

8. We award damages against defendant Simpson and in favor of plaintiffs Goldman and Rufo, in the aggregate, as follows: $8.5 million.

CAPTION(S):

Box

Box: Jurors resolved eight questions in deliberations (see text)