O.J. Simpson...why do people talk like he was guilty when he was found innocent in a court of law?

Question

Its the darndest thing. Whenever I hear his case discussed, people throw out the guilty thing like its universally understood to be true, but in fact, he was found innocent of the crime.

And also, how can you be found innocent in a court of law, but found guilty in a civil court..essentially contradicting the criminal case results.

I mean isnt that like being tried twice or something?

Great answers, but isnt our justice system about innocent until "proven" guilty? I mean he had his day in court and our system said he was not proven guilty..and is thus a free man.

What does that say about our system? Sound like some of you dont think our system of justice is good in determining in determing guilt in criminal charges or don't have too much confidence in it.

And it still boggles my mind, how you can be not guilty of a crime but have to pay damages for it.

I do believe that a less wealthy man with less expensive defense lawyers such as a public defender would have been convicted.

I guess, if you are rich, you can afford to plant that seed of doubt in your criminal case to get you off.
Lets see what happens to Michael Vick.

Answer 1

it's a shame that people have lost all respect for our justice system

Answer 2

He was found not guilty which is a legal term. Innocence is another matter altogether. This was a classic case of jury nullification. The defense was able to skew the facts and point the blame everywhere else but where it was supposed to be: Squarely on the hands of OJ.

Criminal trials require guilt to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil trials only require a preponderance of the evidence. No - he was not being tried twice as civil torts and criminal proceedings are not the same.

Remember the Rodney King verdicts? They were found not-guilty of state crimes, but found guilty of federal crimes. Two different crimes with different penalties. This is not double jeopardy. When you sign up for the law enforcement career, you have to take into consideration that you are the government and if you act in a manner which violates civil rights, you can be charged federally as well as in the state courts.

Sidenote: Jury's and courts cannot decide innocence. They can only decide guilt or not-guilty.

Answer 3

Because the evidence was tainted by bigoted members of the police force, his guilt or innocence was impossible to determine in court. The 'beyond a reasonable doubt' issue could not be put to rest due to the doubts about the handling of the evidence.
He was not 'found innocent' - there is no such ruling.

The court of public opinion chooses what to make of the 'not guilty' court ruling - some are convinced that it means innocent, some that he was guilty but couldn't be convicted due to lack of evidence.

Civil courts have a looser standard of evidence - being able to use 'a preponderance' of evidence rather than holding to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Answer 4

Key pieces of evidence were deemed inadmissable and the jury was barred from hearing key testamony from investigators/witnesses. Much of which the public heard while the judge was deciding on the legality of introducing it into the proceedings.

When interviewed afterwards, when they were no longer sequestured; many of the jurors pointed this out - that missing pieces were filled in when they were allowed access to documents barred due to OJ's great defense team. (the best money could buy) In Criminal Court the burden of proof is on the prosecution and jail sentencing/fines are the result of a guilty verdict.

In Civil Court the burden of proof is on the defendent to prove their innocence and financial renumeration is the result of a guilty verdict. You loan your friend a $1,000 - they don't pay you back saying they thought it was a gift; you can sue and that person has to show hard evidence that you meant it as a gift vs. a loan.

When the burden of proof was on OJ, his lawyers were not able to prove that Nicole & Ron's death was not a direct result of OJ's prior actions leading up to their violent murder. Criminal Court proceedings do not way into Civil Court proceedings and typically vice versa.

Answer 5

There is a difference beyond guilty and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyone with half a brain knows that OJ was guilty in this crime, but there was not enough evidence to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the legal requirement for a guilty verdict. A lot of important evidence was not allowed because of mishandling by police involved in the case. Had this evidence been allowed, there very likely would have been a different verdict.

Answer 6

I think he was guilty. Who else had the motive to kill Nicole Brown? No one. Maybe he didn't do it, but I believe he at least had a hand in it. He had one of the most expensive lawyer teams; does an innocent man need that?

In a civil court, more types of evidence are permitted making it easier to find someone guilty.

It's not being tried twice (double jeapordy) because the crimes are different (wrongful death in the civil case).

Answer 7

LOL , you are too funny . OJ did it . We all know it . And just because he got off doesn't prove innocence either . It proves that people were fooled by Johnny Cochran , and guided by their fascination with celebrities . It also proves(and this is very well documented) that people were motivated by race and not reason .
Civil court is different than criminal court . In criminal court one is found guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' . Reasonable btw does not mean total . However in civil court , one must only prove by 'preponderance of evidence' , which means as long as it's 51% more likely that he committed the crime , then damages will be awarded .

EDIT * -- GEEEESH . Do ya see who's agreeing with you ? ASHLEY . She seems to think that 'women' were killed and they were strangled !!!! Dear Ashley , OJ killed 1 woman and 1 man . They were not strangled . They were cut to pieces . The woman's neck was cut so severely she was almost completely decapitated .
Now you know the intelligence level of anyone who would agree with you that OJ was innocent . Unbelievable .

Answer 8

He was not found innocent, he was found not guilty, there's a world of difference between the two. If a court finds a man innocent, he is exonerated (sp), meaning he is found not only not guilty, but cleared of any responsibility for the charge. If he is found not guilty to a reasonable doubt, it means the jurors felt the prosecution did not find and present sufficient evidence for them to offer a guilty verdict, or that the defense has confused them well enough to feel that way.

In the case of OJ, it is my personal opinion that he is guilty. He was found responsible in the wrongfull death law suit that was brought against him were only the preponderance of evidence is needed to assign blame.

Answer 9

I think it was due to the DNA evidence narrowing the likelihood of someone other than OJ being about 1 in 5 billion. Unfortunately, the only people who serve on a jury are ones that can't understand such evidence. Lastly, the evidence requirement in a court of law is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to where the evidence in a civil court is based on the "preponderance of evidence", or if it's more likely than not that it happened.

Answer 10

In a court of law and a civil court you're being tried for two different (if similar) things. The court of law is attempting to uphold the law, while a civil court is a disagreement between two groups. Though cases tried in both courts may seem very similar, they often have slight differences that allow them both to occur.

The reason that everyone refers to O.J. as guilty is because he was guilty, he just had a lawyer who knew how to trick a jury with confusing monologues. (The Chewbacca Defense, look it up) By the way, remember that leather gloves shrink when wet...

Answer 11

He was not convicted of Murder. Murder is a crime, and the proof has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". Apparently the jury found some reasonable doubt.

He was also sued for Wrongful Death, which is a tort. The standard there is "more likely than not". The jury in that case didn't have to say absolutely that he was responsible, just that it was more likely that he was responsible than not responsible.

No, it's not like being tried twice, because the second trial wasn't criminal.