How could OJ have been found not guilty in the criminal case yet guilty in the civil case.?

Question

OJ Simpson was found not guilty of the murders of his ex wife and her friend in the criminal proceedings. How then could he be found guilty of causing their deaths in the civil case against him?

Answer 1

The criminal case must be decided beyond a reasonable doubt, and evidence can be excluded.

A civil case is decided on a preponderance of evidence, and no evidence can be suppressed.

The civil jury had all the evidence and that is why they decided in favor of the plaintiffs.

Answer 2

First answer is best answer.

Finding OJ "not guilty" under criminal laws does not mean he is "innocent," which the defense is not required to prove.

It just means the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That there was still a possible doubt in the minds of the jurors, which did not meet the standards of conviction.

In the civil case, the prosecution is only required to prove guilt based on preponderance of the evidence. The jury in this case found they met civil standards of proof, but not the other.

Clearly, if the defense were required to prove "innocence beyond a reasonable doubt" OJ would have been found "not innocent" because doubt remains.

Also, it should be noted that according to the "Fully Informed Jury Association" Jurors retain the right to judge the law as well as the facts, and have the right to vote by conscience, even disregarding instructions or limitations by the lawyers or judge or written laws.

The most famous case in history of "jury annullment" was the case where William Penn was facing conviction for preaching a religion (Quakerism) that was clearly in violation of written laws. However, the jury decided religious freedom was the overriding law, and voided the other law as wrong. The judge sequestered the jury and tried to punish them to force them to change their minds, but they stuck with their decision. This case is quoted by FIJA to educate the public on jury annullment.
http://www.fija.org

So in the case of OJ Simpson, if the jury decided the standards were wrong as an obstruction to justice, and decided the given evidence was enough to justify conviction; they could have voted by conscience and nullified instructions given to them otherwise.

Whether or not the jury's decision would have stood up to appeals would be the next question.

Answer 3

Blue steel is right. He doesn't have to prove anything in the criminal case and has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But the civil case it can be a purponderce of the evidence.

Answer 4

Because OJ is truly guilty and the civil case found him to be guilty with liability and the criminal case was horribly flawed for a lot of reasons besides the fact OJ had a truly brilliant defense team who trumped the trail with the race card.

The families only brought the civil case to prove he was guilty. They have not received any of the money they were rewarded in the civil case.

Read his book. I hear he basically admits to the crime in the book and also that he claims to have had an accomplice. Due to double jeopardy OJ cannot be tried for the murders again.

Oh, right the families are asking people to boycott the book

Answer 5

He wasn't found guilty, he was found liable. There's a difference. Criminal cases require a prosecution proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict. Civil cases only require a preponderance of evidence for the defendant to be found liable.

Answer 6

They didn't let the most credible witness testify in the civil trial, Dr. Lee. The reason he was found not guilty in the first place was because every piece of evidence provided by the prosecution was proven unreliable or tainted. People do not bleed blood preservative. the prosecution didn't even have any experts to testify to the forensics.

Answer 7

In the u.s., the answer is yes. The civil judgment is not punishment, like the criminal conviction, but it just an order to pay a debt.

Answer 8

Criminal Records Search Database : http://www.InfoSearchDetective.com/Support

Answer 9

let be honest you kill to people stab one over 20 times cut other right down to the spinal column. must have been covered in blood go out to your white bronco. get in manage to leave only four drops of victims blood. which cop says they see the 4 drops before they get court order to open vehicle. funny thing only 3 can be seen with door closed. next you drive home but climb over your back wall drop matching glove to one left at crime seen.next you get on plane with massive cut on finger and not a single person notices this huge cut. a cut that later after trial prosecuting lawyer says was from the guy clawing OJ finger where's the DNA from under the victims finger nails . can't be easily planted the blood drops at seen were circular as if intentionally placed if you are bleeding dripping blood causes elliptical splats due to your movement. also we are to believe he commited both murders in less than an hour cleaned up and got ready for his plane trip.who would OJ protect just out of curiosity were was his oldest son that night wouldn't be the first time a step mom used her step son to hurt her husband. now you know who I think did it did he borrow dads shoes etc.he talked dad out of the bronco who would dad cover for. his own flesh and blood that's just my opinion..

Answer 10

I was in elementry school when the case came out, so my memory is a bit foggy. I personally think he got away with it because he had alot of money and he might have paid some people off. Maybe that just didn't go so well in the civil case.

And this new thing about his "IF I did it, here's how" story?! BAH!