Was he truly innocent? Was there a not a formal appeal made to try and charge O.J. again. American law confuses me!!!
2007-05-09 05:05:43 · 9 answers · asked by dangerboy101 1 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
Due to the media circus that is American law sometimes....OJ got away with murder - quite literally.
2007-05-09 05:09:17 · answer #1 · answered by Misha-non-penguin 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Several people have already answered on the differences in standard of proof between civil and criminal courts which may account for the difference in outcome. As for the second part of your question, in America, once a person is found not guilty on a criminal charge, the case is over. They cannot be tried again (or appealed) on the same charge as this constitutes double jeopardy. They could however, be charged with a NEW crime that was not originally charged and did not arise from essentially the same fact set.
2007-05-09 05:21:42 · answer #2 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Others have said so far that you don't go to jail for civil cases, you pay compensation to the wronged party. But another difference is that in a criminal case the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in a civil case, it's decided on 'preponderance of evidence', so whoever has the most evidence on their side wins. So OJ won the criminal case but not the civil case.
2016-05-19 00:16:11 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The standard to find fault is easier to meet in civil court. The person suing needs only to show that "a preponderance of the evidence" supports their claims.
In criminal court the prosecution as to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
2007-05-09 05:16:23 · answer #4 · answered by elgüero 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This story is a little dated but okay.
Criminal courts have to prove guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt."
Civil courts burden of proof is much less. More like "is it probable that"
Some people will tell you because the police screwed up, other will tell you because his lawyers were good. Both are true to a degree.
2007-05-09 05:15:08 · answer #5 · answered by ablair67 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
O.J. is guilty as hell.
In civil court, the burden of proof is less or "more likely than not." In criminal court, the burden of proof is "without a reasonable doubt."
He also had good lawyers.
O.J. is a murderer.
2007-05-09 05:13:19 · answer #6 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
everyone assumes he killed them, but it could not be proved , the glove didnt fit ...so who was wearing the glove maybe he had an accomplice...Mark furhman the racist cop , lied on the stand so it didnt help the prosecuters at all
2007-05-09 05:56:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He's even given his account of how he would've done it!!LOL
GUILTY !!
2007-05-09 05:15:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
he asked for his glove back.
2007-05-09 05:11:22 · answer #9 · answered by Ghost Boy 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋