Simpson was found "Not Guilty" and can't be tried again but in a way he was tried again, civily, and while I may not agree with the verdict this seems wrong.
2006-12-20 12:07:44 · 9 answers · asked by taarob 2 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
And you believed the jury?
That verdict was an abomination, and the implications had every woman in every shelter around the world terrified.
But criminal courts and civil courts are two different jurisdictions and facing trials in both is not the least bit unusual.
Here's a piece of advice for you - get over it.
2006-12-23 09:58:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agreed, if a person is found "not guilty" under the far higher criminal court standard - no need to try again under the far lesser civil standard, but it's the law.
One way to approach OJ's criminal acquittal is to consider some of what the jury saw. They heard the Fuhrman tapes where he made highly derogatory statements about blacks then lied underoath. The lead investigator in charge of the whole case freely admitted in court that he took a vial sample of OJ's blood from the lab and carried it back into the crime scene, which is against police policy. The jury saw a video taken by paparazzi of OJ, Nicole, Denise and their parents talking in a nice peaceful manner right after attending OJ/Nicole's daughter's dance recital - and Denise even kissed and hugged OJ (all this was a few short hours before the crime). The jury was taken to OJ's house and did not see a rumored large blood trail. No murder weapon was ever found and there weren't any witnesses. The "found" glove didn't fit - wrong size (heat shrinks, moisture doesn't). OJ's slow speed drive at 30 mph to his own house is not indicative of guilt. Some may disagree with the jury verdict but it's unfair to state with absolute certainty that this person is guilty. Simpson has always maintained his innocence. Likely the "If i did it" title and chapter was decided by the publisher and network for the sensational value which they thought would translate into higher book sales and higher TV ratings for the interview.
Here's an opinion of a writer on the civil trial verdict:
http://members.aol.com/CntrbndMag/oj.html
2006-12-20 14:09:43 · answer #2 · answered by sunshine25 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
OJ was never found guilty in any court. He was found Not Guilty in a criminal court, and found responsible in a civil court.
Normally, that's allowed. But in OJ's case the civil jury should never have found punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish. Punishment is a criminal matter. The criminal jury had already found OJ Not Guilty, and not worthy of punishment.
The civil jury should have been told that the punitive issue was already decided. The judge should have dismissed any claim for punitive damages by Gold Digger Goldman, because the criminal jury had already decided no punishment was necessary.
The civil jury found by a preponderance of the evidence. They admitted that the proof was not beyond a reasonable doubt. They interviewed jurors after the civil trial, and the civil jurors said there was reasonable doubt. That's the standard that should have been used in deciding punitive damages.
But California is a strange place, filled with fruits and nuts. Someday an earthquake will sever California, and it will float into the sea.
All the jurors in the civll case had already watched the case on TV, and read everything about OJ. They lied to get on the jury pretending they didn't have an opinion about his guilt. After the criminal trial, it wasn't possible to have any further fair trials in the case. The judge in the civil case already had an opinion about OJ's guilt or innocence, he never should have presided over the trial. The 2nd trial never should have taken place. It happened because white people weren't willing to honor the verdict of a real uunbiased jury. And because it was california, land of fruits and nuts. (it's where Mel Gibson, Kramer, Gov. Arnold, and other F&N live).
2006-12-20 12:49:22 · answer #3 · answered by randolfgruber 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Double jeopardy is SUPPOSED to mean you can't be tried twice for the same crime. Specifically the Constitution says "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."
We let the lawyers and politicians tell us that the Constitution is just a piece of toilet paper. So they twist it how they want it and dumb citizens just accept it like they do in China.
2015-05-24 14:21:46 · answer #4 · answered by Master's Public 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How someone can be found innocent (not just not guilty, but innocent) and then found liable is a contradiction. The civil case was to satisfy the blood thirst of the court of public opinion. If someone is found "not guilty" in a criminal court then they should not be subjected to a civil trial.
And for you knuckle heads out there, there is no "guilt" or "innocents" in a civil trial so quit saying that he is guilty.
2006-12-20 16:16:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Apparently is legal but I think wrong and sets a bad precedent. So anyone can be found not guilty but still pay for the crime. It's not just California, a lot of people here thought it was fair. You're right, whether or not we agree with the verdict, it seems really wrong.
2006-12-20 14:02:49 · answer #6 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
OJ would only be found "quilty" if he was sent to spell check court...
he was found guilty in a civil suit...
2006-12-20 12:09:17 · answer #7 · answered by Dick Tater 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He was found not guilty, the law says that you can be sued civilly , and that's what they did, thank God for the criminal justice system
2006-12-20 14:43:31 · answer #8 · answered by glasgow girl 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you.
2006-12-20 14:00:21 · answer #9 · answered by Nelson_DeVon 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋