Question Re: O.J. Simson?

Question

In the case of O.J. Simpson; How does one get aquitted of a crime and found "not guilty" by a jury of 12 people then later through a "civil" suit found "liable" for the deaths of these 2 people and be order to pay restitution to the family members for what happened. Isn't that like being tried twice for the same crime? Either you did it or you didn't. How can you be found not guilty in one, then guilty in another? Doesn't that make him "guilty" for these crimes?

Answer 1

Every reasonable person knows he got away with murder.
In the case of the criminal trial one must be "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt". High paid trial lawyers can always introduce doubt.
In the civil trial one only needs to prove guilt to a reasonable degree of certainty.
This is not uncommon in American justice.
Sometimes the only punishment for crimes is civil restitution. This does not happen more often because many criminals have no money.

Answer 2

Thus is the American court system. One trail was criminal and the other civil. Different set of laws come into play. In a criminal court O.J. could only be convicted if it " was beyond a shadow of doubt." In a civil trail, a plaintiff (the Goldmans) only had to prove" with a preponderance of evidence."

Pretty slippery slope. Let's put it this way.

You had a couple beers with friends after work. You drive off to home, and get in a horrible accident. The driver in the other car was killed. In the criminal court your prosecutors say you had been drinking and ran a stop sign. Your defenders say the officers did a blood alcohol test and your were under the legal limit and the stop sign was obscured by an overgrown tree. You beat the involuntary manslaughter charge.

The family of the victim are not satisfied. They sue you civilly for gross negligence, medical bills to treat their family member and burial costs, the car was registered to the driver's parents, so it is about the loss of the car, and emotional distress as this young person was the sole support for two children and a spouse.

Your defenders say you have been acquitted of all charges in criminal court. Your prosecutors present evidence that you admitted to at your criminal trail that you had been drinking. It was a local establishment in an area you were familiar with and have driven that road many times, and your brakes were actually faulty and you knew that.

Judge finds you at fault and attaches a monetary judgment against you. Thus the American justice system.

Answer 3

the law system is different when they prosecute you for murder or anything dealing with any killing. you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person did it. in other words, the districted attorney must prove 100% that the suspect killed someone, which is hard to do. in the OJ Simpson trial, it was about color and how lapd were oppressing the minorities. it had nothing to do with OJ killing anyone, that's one reason why OJ walked. Once aquitted for a crime like killing, the districted attorney can not prosecute OJ for the same crime again, that's why the Goldman family took him to civil court, where they didn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that OJ committed the crime. OJ moved to Florida because they found him guilty in the civil suite. In Florida, the laws there are different which protects OJ from giving away all his money and possessions.

No, it doesn't mean that a person is guilty just because they found him guilty in civil court doesn't mean he is guilty in criminal court. Like i said before, in criminal trials, you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

If you go back to the OJ case, you would also find that the LAPD tampered with evidence.

Answer 4

In a criminal trial, the government has to prove "Beyond a reasonable doubt" that you are guilty.

In a civil trial, the plaintiff only has to prove its case "By a preponderance of evidence". That means if jurors are more than 50% sure of which side is right, the case is decided in their favor.

In the OJ case, I think both verdicts were good calls by the jury.

Answer 5

The ongoing saga of O.J. Simpson offers some interesting insight as to the flaws in the judicial system.

Nobody in America can expect a fair trial if they don't have the means to be able to afford good attorneys as have been seen in his first trial.

The current status of this fallen celebrity is that he needs money to pay for the civil damages, and is getting himself into more hot water through devices like a book that's titled "What if I did it", or his recent flap with stolen memorabilia.

He has lost most ability to be gainfully employed due to his noteriety, so I would suspect he is getting desperate.

To answer your question fully...the system we live under caters to those of means while the rest of us who just plod along and earn a meager existence are doomed should we need good legal representation.

Answer 6

O.J. absolutely murdered Nichole and Ron, and the evidence proved it beyond a shadow of doubt. Now you get this "Dream Team" using their tricks to play the "Race Card", well that's just a crock of crap. Johnny Cocheran should be ashamed of himself as if he called me, I'd be able to identify him as a "black male". Hah, what a joke Jonny Cocheran is, but the jury didn't see it. Or DID THEY?
The trial lasted much too long, longer than it should have. This gave the Defense a lot of time to think up more tricks. After all, they're getting a pretty penny each, aren't they?
The prosecution should have quickened the trial, but they got railroaded in the length and the trickery of the trial.
Seems to me, but who am I but a former abused woman who may have been murdered, That OJ is completely responsible for these murders, refuses to take any responsibily for them, and he believes that the world owes him a living.
His own mother, on the witness stand, stated the "OJ, worst of all, has arthritis." He may well have, but it didn't stop him from the murders of two human beings AND LEAVING HIS CHILDREN ALONE AFTER HE MURDERED THEIR MOM.
It's too bad that the "DREAM TEAM" can't be prosecuted for "MURDER AFTER THE FACT", because THEY knew he killed them.
About the GLOVE? Don't ya know that leather shrinks after it's wet? The bloody glove left overnight in the dew? You don't know that's going to shrink? One of the "DREAM TEAM" knew that.
.

Answer 7

American law is funny. He was not proven guilty in the criminal trial, however, a civil trial uses different criteria. You don't have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it only has to be proven that you "could" have done it, to be held liable.

Answer 8

proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard when the government wants to take your freedom.

proof by a preponderance of the evidence or more likely than not for civil suits... going after money.

freedom is, and should be, harder to take.