Kevin's Watch

You know what? I don't think that matters. I don't want to live in a society that determines guilt by either arrest or by public opinion.

OJ may be a big, disgusting bastard, but from a criminal standpoint, he did not kill anyone.

First of all: Was it really 13 years ago? It seems like it happened so damned recently.

Second of all: While I think OJ was guilty, I was not a member of the jury, and was exposed to evidence the jury was not.

Third of all: I wholely support the idea of Jury Nullification.

Cail wrote:You know what? I don't think that matters. I don't want to live in a society that determines guilt by either arrest or by public opinion.

OJ may be a big, disgusting bastard, but from a criminal standpoint, he did not kill anyone.

Seriously, did you ask several people, with out each of them knowing what the other's were typing, to each type a part of that last line because no one human could type the whole thing without dying from laughing!
It's like the Killer Joke from Monty Python.



I know I know, you're being all "legal" about it.

It's an acquired skill....

Do I think he did it? Absolutely. But a very long and expensive prosecution was unable to convict him in a court of law. That makes him not guilty.

And even if they had found him guilty, it still wouldn't justify the police blacklisting him.

Legally, OJ Simpson is in an odd position because a criminal trial found him "Not Guilty" of the act for which a civil court found him "Responsible."

For what it is worth, I agree that the police should not play favorites.

On a personal note, he has managed to convince me of his actual guilt and my hope is that he goes away.

Trouble is, a civil court finding does absolutely nothing to his legal status. A reasonable argument can be made that the civil jury was pissed over the criminal verdict and ignored the evidence simply to return a "responsible" verdict.

Cail wrote:Trouble is, a civil court finding does absolutely nothing to his legal status. A reasonable argument can be made that the civil jury was pissed over the criminal verdict and ignored the evidence simply to return a "responsible" verdict.

If you want to be completely honest about it, a verdict of "not guilty" in a criminal court should prevent any civil proceedings altogether.

dlbpharmd wrote:

Cail wrote:Trouble is, a civil court finding does absolutely nothing to his legal status. A reasonable argument can be made that the civil jury was pissed over the criminal verdict and ignored the evidence simply to return a "responsible" verdict.

If you want to be completely honest about it, a verdict of "not guilty" in a criminal court should prevent any civil proceedings altogether.

Oh absolutely. The fact that a jury acquitted him in criminal court and yet he was found responsible for their deaths in civil court is absolutely ridiculous.

dlbpharmd wrote:

Cail wrote:Trouble is, a civil court finding does absolutely nothing to his legal status. A reasonable argument can be made that the civil jury was pissed over the criminal verdict and ignored the evidence simply to return a "responsible" verdict.

If you want to be completely honest about it, a verdict of "not guilty" in a criminal court should prevent any civil proceedings altogether.

i've often wondered why that is allowed.

KiGirl wrote:

dlbpharmd wrote:

Cail wrote:Trouble is, a civil court finding does absolutely nothing to his legal status. A reasonable argument can be made that the civil jury was pissed over the criminal verdict and ignored the evidence simply to return a "responsible" verdict.

If you want to be completely honest about it, a verdict of "not guilty" in a criminal court should prevent any civil proceedings altogether.

i've often wondered why that is allowed.

Isn't one "guilt" and the other "responsible".
So you can be one but not always the other.
Plus civil court is the only way you can sue for damages.

But keep in mind, all I know about court is what I learned from OJ!

High Lord Tolkien wrote:

KiGirl wrote:

dlbpharmd wrote: If you want to be completely honest about it, a verdict of "not guilty" in a criminal court should prevent any civil proceedings altogether.

i've often wondered why that is allowed.

Isn't one "guilt" and the other "responsible".
So you can be one but not always the other.
Plus civil court is the only way you can sue for damages.

But keep in mind, all I know about court is what I learned from OJ!

I think it's also a difference between "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "Anything Else."

oh. ok. thanks.

Emotional Leper wrote:I think it's also a difference between "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "Anything Else."

That's exactly it. A criminal conviction requires a higher standard of proof -- "beyond the shadow of a doubt". A civil conviction requires only "the preponderance of the evidence".

judge Ito should have nullified the juries verdict in the murder case.

That would have been even more controversial.

but it would have changed the nature of the argument. Ito was too much of a publicity whore to do anything though.

sgt.null wrote:judge Ito should have nullified the juries verdict in the murder case.

Can a "not guilty" verdict be nullified?

Yes, I believe it can.

Of course, by "Nullified" he may mean that the jury should agree with his POV.

Just 'Tank the damn topic already....

--A

Nahhhhhh, this is tame.