If you were on a jury trying OJ Simpson for robbery, would you vote him guilty regardless of evidence?

Question

I know I would.

oh course, during voir dire, I would say I would be unbiased. I would contend I voted guilty after carefully considering the evidence.

Suppose that OJ was getting back stuff that was stolen from him? He could had filed a police report, it would be on record. He could file a civil suit to recover the items.

Wait... this stuff actually belongs to Ron Goldman! Samll matter of that $33 million judgement to pay.

Answer 1

No.
I know where you're coming from but that would make you no better than he is.

I would still listen to the evidence and come up with a fair verdict.

Plus the way I see it you can't get mad at him for getting off, get mad at the cops for not doing their job the right way, get mad at the D.A. for not proving their case but you can't blame him for getting off.

What was he supposed to do say Hey I did it take me to jail, come on.

Answer 2

Absolutely NOT! The truth will come out on this entire fiasco and he's been released. If I were O.J. and these people had my valuable and precious belongings, I'd have done the same thing if I could have. Don't forget that O.J. did not walk in with them but after them! If these people were selling stolen merchandise I don't know that I wouldn't have walked in without protection of some kind.

If you would do such a thing as to find him guilty regardless of the evidence in this case and this case only, shame on you!

Answer 3

Of course not. A person is not supposed to get tried twice for the same crime.

Would you want someone automatically voting guilty for you if you are were in a legal situation? And don't say, "Well, I wouldn't be in a legal situation," because truly innocent people get in trouble all the time, often for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Granted, I don't care for OJ as a person, and I do think he killed his wife. But the law is not supposed to work on emotion, it's supposed to work on facts.

Answer 4

Absolutely not. But in this case the evidence is mounting. What he did was wrong, and most importantly how he did it was pretty dumb. I always thought O. J. was smarter then this. He has been arrested and is now in custody, and after listening to what the police have so far I think O. J. may have big problems now. It's a shame the police in his murder case weren't as talented as the Vegas police seem to be. Someone should have told O.J., WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS ONLY STAYS IN VEGAS in the movies.

Answer 5

Why could the OJ verdict make blacks offended sufficient to vote for Obama? OJ has by no skill as quickly as stated that he's an OJ supporter and OJ has by no skill achieved something for the black community so why could desire to they rally around the murdering, theif/kidnapper? the respond to your question isn't any.

Answer 6

Ummm, no. That would be illegal, as any person would be told once they are assigned to the jury. It is a violation of federal statute to find someone guilty based on past criminal activity that has no bearing on the current case. Then, you would be in the cell next to him.

Answer 7

I can say w/o a doubt that I would not be sitting on a jury listening to the facts on this robbery case. I'd be so biased. I hope he opts for a bench trial on this one. I can't imagine anyone in America, unless they are 18 yrs old or so, not having some type of bias against him.

Answer 8

No I wouldn't, I think his character, or lack there of is the most telling. You don't even need a trial to see that he is dishonorable. He has never showed remorse for his wife and we all know he did it. Just look at his face and that is all you need.

Answer 9

I would not. I find it disconcerting that so many people would find him guilty or not guilty regardless of evidence. Somehow the guy just seems to polarize people.

Answer 10

I would like to, but the law is the law and you have to prove your case to win. I am sure the prosecution will have plenty of evidence and people to testify.