2006-07-04 15:23:20 · 28 answers · asked by Bob B 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
OJ was guilty.
There were two women jurors on the criminal case. One of them said that for some unknown reason she was very interested in following the civil case.
After she heard all the evidence in the civil case she said that she would have voted guilty in the criminal case if the same evidence had been presented.
One piece of evidence that was presented in the civil case that was not in the criminal case was the proof of the shoes.
There was a shoe print left at the crime scene that was from a rare and unique kind of shoe. At the time of the criminal trial only 100 people in the USA had a pair of those shoes and OJ was one of them. OJ swore up and down in the criminal case that he did not own those kind of shoes. The prosecutors knew he had the shoes but could not prove it conclusively..
However, the lawyers for the Browns and the Goldmans in the civil case had obtained actual photos from several sports reporters showing OJ wearing those kind of shoes during different football games he was a reporter for. That was one of the evidences, I think, that nailed him in the civil court.
2006-07-05 05:17:31 · answer #1 · answered by starone 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty
2006-07-04 15:36:38 · answer #2 · answered by sugar-n-spice 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty
2006-07-04 15:30:42 · answer #3 · answered by trinitytough 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty
2006-07-04 15:27:02 · answer #4 · answered by A M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty.
2006-07-04 15:26:38 · answer #5 · answered by Ludwig Wittgenstein 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty.
2006-07-04 15:26:16 · answer #6 · answered by Pretty_Trini_Rican 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ Simpson was found innocent in a criminal court and guilty in a civil court.
The difference being that the State of California never proved him guilty, and therefore finding him innocent, unable to prosecute him. He was then tried in a civil court, with his murdered wife's family as the plaintiffs, and happened to be proven guilty, therefore having to suffer under their sentencing- a large sum of money since they're not prosecutors.
So he is guilty, but our constitution protects him of double Jeopardy, not allowing him to be tried in criminal court again.
2006-07-04 15:30:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonimo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Irrelevant. The State had it's chance, and he is now and forevermore "not guilty", which is legal shorthand for "Not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is the legal answer. Whether he commited the crime or not is a completely different thing.......
2006-07-04 15:30:54 · answer #8 · answered by tyrsson58 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
His jury said innocent. That's all that us mortals have to know. His maker will take care of him. I personally think with all of the evidence shown that he was guilty. But the media can slant things one way or the other to prove guilt or innocence.
2006-07-04 15:37:59 · answer #9 · answered by benninb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty for taking up the tax payers dollars in a most boring trial
2006-07-04 15:30:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋