I am speaking of the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman in 1995, for which O.J. Simpson was aquitted for murder. Aquit means to free or clear from a charge or accusation. How can one (anyone) then be charged with civil grounds? I guess I am looking for some legal knowledge/ clarification. Thanks
2007-08-13 15:16:29 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Civil courts are basically public lynch mobs legitimized. The burden of proof needed is much less than in a criminal court, but so are the penalties.
I'm not saying that OJ is innocent, it's just that the civil suit about that case is just an example of vigilante mentality. "We'll get you one way or another!"
2007-08-13 15:30:29 · answer #1 · answered by Belzetot 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
As everyone else said, a criminal action for murder and a civil action for wrongful death have different burdens of proof. By the way, the terminology in a civil setting is that he was found liable for the wrongful death of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Guilt and innocence have no meaning in civil courts.
2007-08-14 00:56:13 · answer #2 · answered by Matt W 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An acquittal means he was not found guilty in a criminal court. Nothing else. That is irrelevant with regards to whether O.J. is liable in a civil court. If you murder someone, you can be sued for money in civil court as well as face charges in criminal court. Criminal court has a very high standard for convicting someone (beyond a reasonable doubt). Civil court has an easier burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence). It still requires the defendant to be guilty more likely than not.
2007-08-13 22:40:11 · answer #3 · answered by mcmufin 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Personal........I believe 100% that OJ got away with murder!
I feel bad for the 2 kids that were home during the murders cuz I believe they heard what was going on outside & they may not have "seen" anything or anyone but I believe they heard the voices outside & I guarentee 1 voice was that of their father..... they may never recall hearing his angry voice outside that night because kids tend to surpress things when they are young and scared..... kinda like kids who are molested.... they do not rememeber anything until they are adults....that's if they rememeber at all cuz things can be surpressed so deep inside that the memories are lost forever especially something that is so tramatic..... like the murder of your mother.
I understand the "double jepordy" law but.... I think when dealing with a murder case if a person is found "not guilty" in the criminal trail yet found "guilty" or "responcible" for the death (however it was worded) in a civil trail.... and if new evidence was shown for the civil trail.....even if new evidence is found years later that can proove 100% the person was in fact "guilty" then I think they should have another criminal trial. NOONE SHOULD GET AWAY WITH MURDER!!!!!
Just my personal oppinion..... noone has to agree with me I just wanted my voice heard.
2007-08-17 21:49:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because civil court charges are unrelated to criminal charges. Unlike criminal cases, there is no jail time for being found guilty in civil court. Because the charges are different this doesn't fall under the double jeaporady rule. Does it make sense no, not really, its jus one of many legal loopholes that lawyers use to acheive thier goals.
2007-08-14 00:10:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bar is set lower in a civil court vs. a criminal court. In a criminal case, you are presumed innocence until PROVEN guiltly beyond a reasonable doubt
In a civil case only 51% of the evidence presented needs to point to someone's guilt which happened in the civil case against Simpson.
2007-08-13 22:27:37 · answer #6 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's two totally different things. A criminal jury has to find guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" while a civil court merely has to find that it is "more likely than not" that the charges are true. Criminal = slam dunk, civil = 51% probable.
2007-08-13 22:26:04 · answer #7 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because one thing has nothing to do with the other. There was enough evidence to warrant a lawsuit in civil court.
2007-08-13 22:22:48 · answer #8 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He was acquitted in a Criminal court, but found guilty in a Civil court.
2007-08-13 22:22:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You can be found guilty in a civil trial, seperate from a State trial. You can also be convicted in federal court after being found innocent in state court. Think of the officers convicted in the whole Rodney King sham
2007-08-13 22:22:46 · answer #10 · answered by hardwoodrods 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋