Ok so, i think oj is guilty of murder,....... unfortunatly he was found not guilty...so how come if he was found not guilty in court, he was found liable for the deaths in a civil suit and now has to pay 30 mill dollars. I don't understand the justice system. If he was found not guilty of murder charges, how can he be held liable for the deaths?
2007-01-05 10:41:59 · 20 answers · asked by ? 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
One is a criminal court and the other is a civil court and neither one has anything to do with the other.
2007-01-05 10:47:07 · answer #1 · answered by Its Hero Dictatorship 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The legal requirement for guilt is on the accuser in a criminal case. The court, through the DA, must find the person guilty beyond a reasonabe doubt. It usually, but not always, requires a preponderance of evidence to find someone guilty of murder.This evidence normaly would include a dead body, a murder weapon, witnesses, a motive, and other physical evidence that proves the defendent committed the murder. Now, with todays advocate judges, some of these traditional, and reasonable items of proof are not being required as they should be. District Attorneys are being allowed to sell a "story" of what happened to a jury and get a conviction, and todays judges are letting them get away with this in many cases even though the law in most states requires a DA to drop the charges if he believes the defendant innocent. It is becoming more and more about whether the case can be won, and less and less about whether or not the person is guilty. In a civil case the burden of proof is not on the court, instead the accused more or less has to get the jury to believe that they are not guilty.
2007-01-05 10:57:26 · answer #2 · answered by avatar2068 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Look at it this way:
In a criminal case, your liberty (and possibly your life) is at stake.
In a civil case, it's just your money.
In criminal cases, the Courts recognize exactly how much is at stake, so they require a LOT of evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) before they impose a criminal sanction.
In civil cases, the Courts just want everything to balance out 'fairly' over time, so they only require a 'more likely than not' standard (preponderance of the evidence).
The result of the two cases basically says this:
The (Criminal) Jury couldn't say that OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the (Civil) Jury said OJ was 'most likely' liable for their deaths.
2007-01-05 15:29:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The criminal trial has a higher burden of proof than the lower standard required for the civil trial. One way to approach OJ's 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 "found" glove didn't fit - wrong size (heat shrinks, moisture doesn't). The jury was taken to visit OJ's house and didn't see the rumored large blood trail - wasn't there. The jury did see 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). No murder weapon was ever found and there weren't any witnesses. OJ's slow speed drive at 30 mph to his own house is not indicative of guilt. Simpson has always maintained his innocence.
2007-01-06 01:03:58 · answer #4 · answered by sunshine25 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course OJ was guilty. But he got the verdict that he paid for, so that should have been the end of it all. And no, I also don't understand how he could be held liable in civil court for wrongful death if he was found not guilty in criminal court. It's been over 10 years, fer cryin' out loud. I thought all of the various court cases were over with. Why can't everyone just let it go? Particularly that Goldman guy.
2007-01-05 10:47:09 · answer #5 · answered by badkitty1969 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because the Civil suit, which he was found liable under has a different evidence standard, which wheiged on reasonable evidence whether he had something to do with their deaths rather than did he do the actual killing. On that basis the families got a judgement against him. I think he is guilty too.
2007-01-05 10:47:02 · answer #6 · answered by stick man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I easily haven't any way of understanding without seeing the info they have hostile to him, inspite of the indisputable fact that it would not look strong for him consequently some distance. so some distance as very last time, even as i have self assurance he change into responsible, had I been on that jury i might want to have voted to acquit. The police branch and prosecution messed the case up so badly that i do not see how any jury might want to have got here upon him responsible previous any actual looking doubt.
2016-12-01 21:28:35 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was found Not Guilty in Criminal court. He was taken to Civil court and was found guilty. It is easier to find someone guilty in civil court than criminal court.
2007-01-05 10:44:40 · answer #8 · answered by chris42050 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In criminal trials, the standard is evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." In civil trials (i.e. trials when someone wants money for something bad that happened), the standard is "preponderance of evidence," which is easier to meet. So it is possible to not meet the standard of evidence in a criminal trial but still meet the standard in civil court.
2007-01-05 10:47:30 · answer #9 · answered by Nicole B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because there is a difference between him murdering them and being the cause of their deaths. the only reason he was not at least held liable for negligent homicide is because he had the best lawyer ever.
2007-01-05 10:57:58 · answer #10 · answered by Venessa B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋