OJ was tried criminally and was found not guilty (I assure you the state of California has more money than OJ, yet he prevailed).
OJ was then sued civilly for wrongful death by the Goldman’s (OJ probably had more money than the Goldman’s) and yet the Goldman’s prevailed in the civil suit.
The standard for winning a civil case (preponderance of evidence) is lower than the standard for winning a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt), so the two are not comparable.
What does that have anything to do with the point being made of the OJ Simpson case as an example of money winning cases? In both the civil and criminal case the parties with more money/resources lost respectively.
The party with less money had the easier side in both cases. GGGP's point is that even though the party with less money had the easier case in the OJ trial, they had enough money to win what somebody with less money would have certainly lost. Though the state has more money, it could not afford OJ's lawyers. Similarly, at the time of the civil trial, OJ could not afford the lawyers he had in the criminal trial.
OJ is an interesting case. Basically though, the prosecution messed up enough that OJ’s team was able to instill enough doubt to avoid the “without a doubt” part needed for a jury
OJ was tried criminally and was found not guilty (I assure you the state of California has more money than OJ, yet he prevailed).
OJ was then sued civilly for wrongful death by the Goldman’s (OJ probably had more money than the Goldman’s) and yet the Goldman’s prevailed in the civil suit.