Are they not the same thing?
2007-09-14 03:46:03 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Good question. No, they are not the same thing. There are other differences also, but in the Simpson cases, the big difference is that the standard of proof differs from criminal court to civil court. Specifically, in the criminal case, the state must prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt." That is the highest, most difficult standard to meet in US law. Think of it as getting over a ten foot fence. In the civil case the standard of proof the plaintiff must meet is "a preponderance of the evidence," a three foot fence. I mean by that the jury must believe that it is more likely than not that OJ did the act, and that the act was wrongful, (for example, not self defense.)
2007-09-14 03:58:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
First, and this is extremely important, no one is found innocent in our criminal justice system. Defendants are found not guilty. The distinction being that there may be evidence that the defendant committed the crime but it did not meet the burden of proof required to convict.
The burden of proof is higher in the criminal action than in the civil action. In a criminal proceeding the state must prove the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil action, the standard is a preponderance of the evidence meaning it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the act. This is a case that I used when I was teaching because students often do not understand the difference. Can both verdicts be correct? Absolutely.
2007-09-14 03:55:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The murder trial was a criminal trial that required the evidence prove w"without a doubt" that O.J. murdered his wife. The jury could not come to that conclusion so he was found innocent.
The worngfull death trial was a civil case and the rules are different. This only requires that tere be a "preponderance" or majority of evidence pointing to the likely hood that he "caused" his wife's death. The jury in this case felt that te evidence was sufficient to find him guilty.
It's a matter of different rules of evidence.
2007-09-14 03:55:02 · answer #3 · answered by afreshpath_admin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The murder charges were tried in criminal court where the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is significantly higher than the wrongful death charges tried in civil court (by a preponderance of the evidence).
2007-09-14 03:55:00 · answer #4 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. The criminal trial had a jury who had to decide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They apparent had reasonable doubt.
In a civil case, the plaintiff only has to have a preponderance of evidence, meaning 51% or more in his favor.
Two different burdens of proof and two different juries.
2007-09-14 03:52:10 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He was found innocent of murder by the government's criminal case. Wrongful death is a civil case in the civil court. He was sued, and found guilty. In civil court you only need a majority vote by the jury.
2007-09-14 03:51:27 · answer #6 · answered by Kristian K 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I THINK because its 2 different courts. One is a civil court and cannot pass judgment on a murder since murder is prosecuted by the state...
2007-09-14 03:52:14 · answer #7 · answered by Petra 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Are you referring to the civil judgment? If so, probably because the burden of proof is lower in a civil court.
2007-09-14 03:51:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, one is a criminal and one is a civil suit.
The main reason is that the state of California has worse lawyers than the ones hired by the Goldman family.
2007-09-14 03:50:34 · answer #9 · answered by chuckna21 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This just in, OJ is being questioned about a casino break in and robbery. Yahoo news.
2007-09-14 03:54:01 · answer #10 · answered by Enigma 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋