can someone (w/ real knowledge and not just ignorant opinions) tell me how OJ Simpson was convicted of a wrongful death suit in the deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman? He was aquitted of their murder, and they were not killed on his property or in his presence..so assuming he truely his innocent how is it his fault they died? i don't understand what about him caused their wrongful death?
2007-09-19 06:44:02 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The wrongful death suit was heard in civil court. The standards of proof are much lower there. In the criminal case the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that someone, on average, is about 90% sure that someone did something. In civil court, the burden is by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the evidence is just over 50% that someone did something to be held liable. Apparantly the lower burden of proof made the difference. Additionally, the prosecution made MANY errors in the criminal case that the civil attorneys could "learn" from.
2007-09-19 06:53:18 · answer #1 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OJ was not found "truely innocent" in the criminal trial. He was found "not guilty". There is a big difference. In a criminal trial, it must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. So even where there is a great amount of evidence against a defendant (as many believe there was against OJ), the jury can still have "reasonable doubt" and come back with a verdict of "not guilty".
In a civil trial, such as the wrongful death action, it is a different, lower standard of proof. The plaintiff must prove by the "preponderance of the evidence" that the defendant is liable. The usually means that it is more likely than not that the defendant committed the act.
Althought the murders did not happen on OJ's property, the jury in the civil trial believed that they did happen in OJ's presence, and by his hand.
2007-09-19 06:56:36 · answer #2 · answered by raichasays 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a LOT of evidence that OJ caused the death of Brown and Goldman. It was NOT sufficient evidence to convict in a MURDER trial according to that jury, but it WAS sufficient evidence in a wrongful death civil suit according to THAT jury. The evidenciary requirements in a wrongful death suit are not the same as for a murder trial.
2007-09-19 07:01:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your assumption is wrong. In a criminal case, the District Attorney has a high burden of proof, that is "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a civil case the plaintiff has to have the preponderance of evidence in his favor to prevail. That is 51% of the evidence.
One jury determined that the state did not prove his case. A different jury determined that the plaintiffs proved their case.
2007-09-19 06:58:05 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I thought most of the above answers were pretty well written for a very complex subject. However, if you walked up to 10 people on the street and asked them to define "standard of proof" or "standing"--one I just heard today--I think maybe 2 or 3 at best would have a good idea what the terms mean. I am assuming no one answering is uninformed, it s just some legalese that is being spoken and not briefly explained.
2015-02-05 03:29:06 · answer #5 · answered by Skinnykid 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋