2006-11-16 13:14:55 · 21 answers · asked by The boy from London 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, he's not-guilty in the eyes of the law. Civil court is just that; they found that it's more than likely that he is liable financially for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Criminally he is forever not guilty (not the same as innocent).
2006-11-16 13:20:13 · answer #1 · answered by UNITool 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Others have said so far that you don't go to jail for civil cases, you pay compensation to the wronged party. But another difference is that in a criminal case the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, it's decided on 'preponderance of evidence', so whoever has the most evidence on their side wins. So OJ won the criminal case but not the civil case.
2016-03-28 23:02:01 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
simpson was not founds guilty in either criminal or civil court. he was found not guilty in criminal court, but found civilly liable for damages as a result of the civil trial.
being that the burden of proof, and the standards of evidence which can be used are far different in criminal court than in civil court, oj could be found innocent of a crime, but liable for damages in the death of his wife.
evidence which cannot be used in criminal court, can be used in civil court because the laws governing them are not the same.
2006-11-16 13:21:52 · answer #3 · answered by de bossy one 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Father Chuck is essentially correct. However, a "not guilty" verdict is not a declaration of innocence. It just means that the jury in the criminal case felt that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. The evidence of his guilty was overwhelming.
2006-11-16 15:08:42 · answer #4 · answered by Carl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he was found not guilty in the criminal case, so he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
In the civil case he was found "liable" and was awarded monetary award. But he was never convicted, that is only possible in a criminal court.
2006-11-16 13:17:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Criminal court determine guilt or innocence.
Civil court determines whether someone is financially liable for damages (monetary payments).
The standards of proof are different, the facts that must be proven are different, the legal issues are different, and the outcomes are different.
2006-11-16 14:46:18 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because he was not charged with murder in the civil case. He was acquitted of murder in the criminal case, then in the civil case he was found "responsible for the deaths" of his wife and her friend. Responsibility for someone's death is not the same thing as murder, at least not murder as defined in U.S. law.
2006-11-16 13:18:00 · answer #7 · answered by Frosty Lemmon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. he was only found guilty in a civil court. he was found not guilty in federal court thus that means he is not guilty.
" If it does not fit you must aquit." Qoute Johhny Cockren may god rest his soul.
2006-11-16 13:17:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the civil court found him responsible for their deaths. Not a murder.
2006-11-16 13:17:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only in the eyes of the Civil court (unfortunately).
2006-11-16 13:16:22 · answer #10 · answered by i have no idea 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋