2006-11-19 18:05:39 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Because he had decent lawyers (although many criminal defense attorneys don't really think that OJ really had the best attorneys he could have had), the DAs were kind of bad, sometimes you get lucky with a jury, the cops weren't so good, and the evidence wasn't really that damning. Most crimes are solved by a search in which a smoking gun is found or by confession. You didn't have any of these in the OJ trial. We just had circumstantial evidence here. Even the bloody glove was circumstantial. And then the law tells us that, if there are two reasonable explanations, one pointing to innocence and the other pointing to guilty, the jury must pick the one pointing to innocence. If one is more reasonable than the other, that's too bad. In this case, it was reasonable to the jury that the glove was planted by a racist cop who had major problems. Otherwise, there was nothing else (except that slow car chase that showed his guilty, but the DAs didn't harp on this).
You see, DAs are used to winning all the time and it goes to their head. They assume that the jury will just take the DA's word for it and move on. But there were a lot of blacks on the jury and blacks know that cops sometimes lie. It's not unreasonable to them. As such, it was reasonable to them that OJ was framed and there wasn't really that much direct evidence that couldn't have been tainted by the cops. So, they hung their hat on that. If cops wouldn't lie, people might believe them when they were telling the truth more often. Of course, most people do and that makes the cops less inclined to change their ways. But once in a while, they get burned.
But don't worry. OJ angered so many people that it is now much easier to convict someone so lots of other people with no money and some with money who otherwise may not have been convicted have been convicted.
2006-11-19 19:10:29 · answer #1 · answered by Erik B 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Having expensive lawyers didn't hurt, but mostly, I think, becuase they did a good job of getting him a sympathetic jury. The "burden of proof" in criminal cases is very high in our country, it requires a jury to find guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". (the principal of course is that "it is better to let 100 guilty men go free then to condemn one innocent one.") By contrast civil liability (and why OJ did have to shell out some $$) only requires that the defendant's liability be established by a "preponderance of the evidence". This is merely a "more likely than not" standard, while the criminal one does not allow any but the most far fetched hesistation or uncertainty on the part of a jury.
2006-11-19 18:41:42 · answer #2 · answered by Mogul 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
During the trial, California was very worried about the racial tension, and possible riots over the verdict of guilty. I have heard of , and seen many effects of Jury tampering.
But remember that he WAS found not guilty.
Obviously there was not much real evidence linking him to the crime, and I for one was in California, and watched the complete trial on TV.
I knew he was going to be found not guilty after the first week of testimony.
There was a lot of tampering of evidence by the police.
Because of that, now it will be harder to get a conviction, especially if the tampering could be proved.
Watch the Avery case in Wisconsin.
That should prove to liven things up for you.
2006-11-19 18:36:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
OJ was NOT found innocent. He was found to be not guilty of the specific charges brought against him in a court of law. He had a jury trial.
2006-11-19 18:26:31 · answer #4 · answered by mamadixie 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
OJ was found innocent because 1) the timeline never fit, and 2) the jurors learned that EDTA was detected in the blood samples which meant reasonable doubt was inevitable.
2017-01-16 20:41:37 · answer #5 · answered by Sid 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
O.J. was NOT found innocent. He was found "Not Guilty". There is a difference.
Finding him "Innocent" would mean that the 12 jurors actually believed that he did not commit the crime in question.
Finding him "Not Guilty" means that the jury simply agreed that the state did not prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt and they had no choice but to let him go.
2006-11-19 19:08:47 · answer #6 · answered by dta_stonecold_dta 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because he had better lawyers. Somebody compared his team to the state as being the same as when the USA played basketball against Angola during the Barcelona Olympic Games.
2006-11-19 21:41:18 · answer #7 · answered by Carlos D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ is innocent because detective Furman was a racist, there were minor over sites in the investigation, and what black man don't own some bloody gloves, I got one here, doesn't mean I did anyhting
2014-10-28 16:30:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
because johnny cockroach twisted the law to place blame on the police department, and take away from the case against the murderer.
2006-11-20 01:22:04 · answer #9 · answered by grumpy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because he could afford the very best lawyers.
2006-11-19 18:08:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋