Is the o.j. simpson verdict evidence of blatant racism similar to that imposed against blacks in the 1940s-1950s? In those days, whites were aquitted of murder simply because they were white. in the case of o.j. simpson, he was obviously aquitted because he was black. there couldn't have been more damning evidence against a person. with the majority of the jurors being black, were they trying to make an illegal statement be freeing a black murderer? Should jurors be investigated for illegal activity?
2007-02-13 02:13:05 · 5 answers · asked by common 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I can stretch my hand out to and make it look like my gloves dont fit. Hehe, he is so guilty its not even funny. But yes, I think you are correct. and Yes everyone involved in that case should be investigated. Especially now with his "confession" book
2007-02-13 02:18:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wha ...?
Criminal trials require a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It is a crime against society (eg. the state of California). That means he is innocent until proven guilty. Your opinion may be that the evidence was "damning" but the jury had some doubts, and OJ's defense team was able to bring that up. No one witness the crime. DNA matching was not allowed by the judge. Kato Kaelin heard some "bumps" at Simpson's estate, two miles from the crime scene, and a glove was found there. But Kaelin didn't see Simpson. (And, it was proved by the defense team, in court, that "the glove didn't fit; " which was true, it didn't fit and he showed it in court, thus providing doubt).
OJ was found guilty in the civil trial, brought on by the relatives of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. The burden of proof is different--in civil cases the burden is initially on the plaintiff, that is the family had to show that they had a preponderance of evidence showing OJ was involved, and then, through OJ's behavior that he had malicious intent.
It then shifts to the accused--OJ then had to prove that he was not guilty, which he was unable to do. A little different than the criminal trial where he is assumed innocent. In February 1997 the jury awarded the plaintiffs $8.5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. The jury awarded the punitive damages based on an expert's testimony that Simpson could earn $25 million over the rest of his life by trading on his notoriety with book deals, movie contracts, speaking tours, and memorabilia sales. The jury did not want Simpson to profit from the crimes.
The families were unable to recover money from OJ and he moved to Florida to get out of paying. However, when he tried to pocket the money for the book deal, the families went to court and froze his accounts, so that they will get the money. Too bad for OJ.
Jurors cannot be investigated for "illegal" activity in a decision. The law is impartial and a jury is selected for its impartiality--the attorneys on both sides of a case approve the jurors. They were not /are not criminals.
Get over this, it was 12 years ago.
2007-02-13 02:30:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually I think the jurors in the OJ case should be hunt down and have their throats slit. What a bunch of north american ground apes. You knows it was a spiry gainst OJ..he likes chicken like me..he couldntz has dun itz. A black man lashing out an killing his hoe wife, nah that sh&t don't happen..wez a jentle peeples. My BUTT!!!
And now the butt munch has writing a book on how he allegedly did it. Those jurors are literally going to burn in hell right along with OJ. Freakin bones
Dear Ole Johnny is already baking in hell as I type. If it don't fit ..you must acquit. How's it fitting now Johnny???
2007-02-13 02:33:28 · answer #3 · answered by John F 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
To what end? Was it a farce of a verdict? Yes. The book he wrote is undeniable truth to that fact. The people who wanted to believe the lies ,did so I believe, as a justification of past wrongs. My suggestion if your a famous black person wanting to get rid of your white spouse or ex-spouse, and get away with it. L.A. county and that jury of your peers is the place for you.
2007-02-13 02:32:07 · answer #4 · answered by Mother 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
IF, and that is a BIG IF, the jurors acted as you describe, they were exercising their rights as jurors. It is a phenomenon called jury nullification. To become more informed on this topic, see www.fija.org
2007-02-13 02:18:12 · answer #5 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋