Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, for those of you who are old enough to remember the '90s, i have a question:
OJ simpson was acquitted of murder, which basically meant there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of the crime....
my question is then this: how were the girl's parents able to convince a jury of the "wrongful death" and get millions ordered to be given in damages?
I'm assuming the criteria for "wrongful death" is different than "murder".....but can someone please clear this up for me? The question has been bugging me for a couple of weeks after i watched a OJ related video.
I'm assuming the criteria for "wrongful death" is different than "murder".....but can someone please clear this up for me? The question has been bugging me for a couple of weeks after i watched a OJ related video.
You are correct. One requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The other requires only guilt by a 'preponderance of the evidence'
Quote:
The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.
Basically, if you think it's better than 50/50 that someone is guilty.. That's enough for 'preponderance', but not enough for 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
The burden of proof needed for a conviction in Civil Court is less than what you need for Criminal Court.
Regarding the original trial, there was more than enough forensic and DNA evidence to convict Simpson, he just had very slick lawyers who played the race card to a minority jury and won.
Yeah, you can't plead the 5th amendment if you've already been tried and found not-guilty. They'd also dug up an old picture of him wearing the Bruno Maglia shoes he claimed to have never owned a pair of.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 02-03-2015 at 09:57 PM..
Reason: Removed deleted quote
Regarding the original trial, there was more than enough forensic and DNA evidence to convict Simpson, he just had very slick lawyers who played the race card to a minority jury and won.
That's a little bit of an oversimplification, IMO.
The system of handling the evidence was questioned, successfully, and if you can prove there were evidence gathering and handling procedures not followed, the scientific evidence cannot be considered reliable. That was also in the days where DNA evidence was very new to both police and courts.
The "race card" argument came in to play when Mark Fuhrman denied using the "n word" and then witnesses and tapes were produced of him doing exactly that. His denial and then the subsequent evidence that proved he was probably lying threw into question all of his testimony, and probably discredited him as a witness and, more importantly, as an investigator (he was the one who claimed to find the blood-soaked glove).
With all of that said, I do think O.J. committed those murders and I do think his attorneys put on quite a show.
I just disagree that the forensic and DNA evidence was, legally, a "slam dunk" in a court of law. The police and prosecutors committed a lot of errors that some GREAT attorneys pounced on.
That's the way our criminal system works from time to time.
It also works sometimes in the reverse and defendants without O.J.'s resources, who are sometimes innocent, are convicted on equally questionable evidence and testimony. Unfortunately for them, they don't have money and their public defender is likely overworked, underpaid, and unable to provide and adequate defense.
So, for those of you who are old enough to remember the '90s, i have a question:
OJ simpson was acquitted of murder, which basically meant there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of the crime....
my question is then this: how were the girl's parents able to convince a jury of the "wrongful death" and get millions ordered to be given in damages?
I'm assuming the criteria for "wrongful death" is different than "murder".....but can someone please clear this up for me? The question has been bugging me for a couple of weeks after i watched a OJ related video.
That wasn't a trial, it was a circus! Plenty of evidence, poorly presented by the prosecution. Anyone remember the gloves? In the trial, OJ was allowed by the judge to put rubber gloves on prior to trying on skin tight driving gloves that were somehow part of the trial.... Of course, the leather gloves didn't fit... Those prosecutors and the judge should have been driven out of the legal system, it was just bad!
I never understood how you can be guilty and innocent at the same time.OJ was found innocent of the killing, but was found guilty of wrongful death...yes because he killed them!!!!
So, for those of you who are old enough to remember the '90s, i have a question:
OJ simpson was acquitted of murder, which basically meant there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of the crime....
my question is then this: how were the girl's parents able to convince a jury of the "wrongful death" and get millions ordered to be given in damages?
I'm assuming the criteria for "wrongful death" is different than "murder".....but can someone please clear this up for me? The question has been bugging me for a couple of weeks after i watched a OJ related video.
There were a lot of screw ups in the Simpson trial that forced the prosecutions evidence to look less than stellar. I think a lot of the jury knew he likely did it but without the prosecution being able to prove that with a reasonable doubt they weren't able to convict him. The juries also only require a 9 verdict majority to secure a judgement for the plaintiffs. So you have a little more wiggle room if some of the jurors don't really agree the defendant is culpable of anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
guilty and innocent at the same time
