i really don't understand the law. I'm not being a smart *** but if someone is found not guilty why would they pay money? Isn't that kind saying they are guilty? I just would like my question answered seriously not by some smart *** who doesn't know what they are talking about. I'm not deciding wheather or not he is guilty or innocent, i would just like some anwsers.Thank You.
2007-09-18 02:44:39 · 16 answers · asked by miss_controversal 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
He was found guilty in the civil suit and ordered to pay damages
2007-09-18 02:48:59 · answer #1 · answered by wizjp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are confusing the criminal trial with the civil trial. A criminal trial requires a much higher standard of proving guilt, because the result of being found guilty sends you to jail. The government is the one bringing charges in a criminal trial.
A civil trial is usually brought by a citizen, not the government, and will require you to pay, but not necessarily go to jail. When O.J. was 'acquitted', it was because the jury could not say 100% that he was guilty. This was mostly, IMHO, because the prosecutors did not do the best job in assembling an air-tight case. Despite the evidence of everyone's blood being found in O.J.'s house, the defense ripped the police department so badly that the jury couldn't be "100% sure".
A civil trial (where people can sue for $$), has a lower standard because all you have to prove is that they were responsible for it. So the Goldman's sued O.J. after he was acquitted in the criminal trial for wrongful death, and won...but O.J. didn't have any money (supposedly). That is why the news people keep talking to the Goldman's because they are still waiting to be paid $33 million dollars, and OJ hasn't paid a dime yet. It will be interesting to see if this armed robbery case reveals where he has hidden his millions in off shore accounts.
Everybody knew he was guilty and was appalled that he got away with such a violent crime. Looking back at all of the evidence, there was blood from OJ's wife and the other victim in his car and at his house. It should have been a slam-dunk. But the jury was apparently influenced by the defense testimony more than they should have been.
2007-09-18 03:08:17 · answer #2 · answered by julie m 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The not guilty verdict was in a criminal case. The standard of proof in a criminal case is betond a reasonable doubt. The money owed to the Brown and Goldman families is from a civil case, where he was found responsible , by a preponderance of the evidence, a much different standard. He is still not guilty. It is only a kind of moral victory for the Goldmans at least.
2007-09-18 02:55:09 · answer #3 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was found not guilty in a criminal trial. The judgment in the civil case did not go his way. The Goldman family is pursuing the civil award.
2007-09-18 02:51:36 · answer #4 · answered by Arby 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he was found not guilty in criminal court ...because the prosecutor could not prove without a reasonable doubt that he did it. royalties being paid to the goldmans were a civil court matter. the goldmans hired a private attorney who was able to work the evidence differently so that that particular jury would find him guilty. a criminal court decision usually is inadmissable in civil court.
2007-09-18 02:51:50 · answer #5 · answered by CRmac 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope he will get off just like the Ted Kennedy
While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. He passed the bar exam in 1959, and two years later was appointed an Assistant to the District Attorney in Massachusetts' Suffolk County.
On 19 July 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit, narrow, rickety wooden bridge, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge and into Poucha Pond. He swam to shore and walked back to the party -- passing several houses and a fire station -- and two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep.
Kennedy called the police the next morning. By then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car.
2007-09-18 02:55:36 · answer #6 · answered by Michael F 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because the goldman family sued him for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman and he was found guilty of that... I know. Dont make a ton of sense, but you can be found not guilty in a criminal court, but sued in a civil court and found guilty of another charge.
2007-09-18 02:50:12 · answer #7 · answered by amadeus_tso 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he was found liable for their deaths in civil court and ordered to pay around $33M to the families. Of course he went bankrupt and the Goldmans haven't received hardly anything. So anytime OJ tries to make some money, the Goldmans are right behind him to make sure they get what they are owed.
2007-09-18 02:48:47 · answer #8 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It does not seem right that it is possible to sue someone for liability in a crime that they have been acquitted of.
But it does point out how an acquittal of criminal charges is not the same as being found to be innocent. It just means that they state failed in their one allotted attempt to convict you.
So, is OJ innocent of the crime? Not determined, according to the criminal court, but found to be unlikely in the civil court.
2007-09-18 02:52:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was found not guilty in his criminal trial, but he was found guilty (or responsible, I forget) in his civil trial. Different types of evidence are allowed in a civil trial, it is not uncommon for a high profile case to end in a not guilty verdict for the criminal trial, and a guilty verdict for the civil trial.
2007-09-18 02:48:55 · answer #10 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋