O J Simpson.

[lliam]

After the Apollo mission on the Discovery Channel yesterday,
I watched the first part of the O J Simpson murder trial.
The first part was about the discovery of the bodies of Simpsons ex wife and her lover and the thoughts of the families of the victims and the chase on the freeway in the white Bronco.

Simpsons, Sister in law had no doubt that O J had committed the murders.
The guy who was with OJ's ex Wife; his Sister also had no doubt that OJ had killed them both. What's happened to OJ? We don't hear anything about him nowadays.
Lliam.

[barfle]

What's happened to OJ? We don't hear anything about him nowadays.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

[Marye]

I remember we spent a lot of time on the golf courses looking for the "real killers" after his criminal trial ended in acquittal...

[BenMurphy6]

he got in trouble a while back for assaulting some woman in a case of road rage....he's a real class act.

i was in 8th grade when the murder trial was such big news. it was so big, in fact, that the principal announced the verdict over the public address system. the thing that surprised me then (and it doesn't surprise me now), is that reactions to the verdict were strongly divided along racial lines, even in 8th grade.

[Marye]

Originally posted by Marye:
I remember we spent a lot of time on the golf courses looking for the "real killers" after his criminal trial ended in acquittal...

WAIT!! ! I wasn't there...

[lliam]

quote:
Originally posted by barfle: QUOTE] You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

===========================================

Not Guilty, oop's, I mean, I didn't mean it to sound that way.

How's about casting votes on wether OJ is/not or was guilty of murder. I'm not sure if that's allowed on these boards.

[dkm32]

Nicole Simpson's Family took OJ to trail. I don't know the legalees of it, but something to do with OJ being responsible for Nicole's death. THAT jury decided that he was responsible and gave her family quite a settlement. He had to sell his Hisman trophy (etc) to pay them.

BTW: The house where the murders took place has been torn down and a new house built in it's place.

<small>[ 06-20-2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: dkm32 ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

"If da glove don' fit, you must aquit!"

How many ways can you say: "Miscarriage of justice"?

It just goes to show in this country, the best justice money can buy.

[shostakovich]

He was acquitted of murder, but the following civil suit (the charge was something like "unlawful death" --- anybody know?) came back with a guilty verdict. Weird, eh?
Shos

[BenODen]

It's a question of burden of proof. For the criminal case they have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (as in there's nothing that says it couldn't be true). For the Civil case, they only have to say that there's a preponderance of evidence that says they're guilty.

That he was convicted of the Civil case says to me that there was some questionable evidence that was might put the verdict in question, but it's not very likely that the evidence is wrong. The timeline evidence is the only thing that I remember that might fall into that category. The glove was certainly just showmanship. Maybe the chain of custody of some of the evidence was questionable too... But on the whole, big circus, who knows if the right thing was done!

-Benito

[dai bread 1]

I fully agreed with the "Not Guilty" verdict once I'd heard that in U.S. law there is no appeal from such a verdict.

Don't forget, that jury had sat in that courtroom for a year listening to what passed for evidence and counter-evidence. It was a media circus; in fact it looked from this part of the world like a circus all through.

Had I had to sit through the thing, I too would have delivered a "Not Guilty" vedict, knowing that anything else would have resulted in an instant appeal and some other poor sods of jurors would have had to sit through another circus.

[barfle]

As a resident of California at the time of the OJ trial, I have a few comments to make.

First, the only qualification for being on a jury is that you are a resident over a particular age (21, but I'm not positive, it could easily be 18 these days). The ONLY other qualification is that you can't get out of it. That means most jurors are blue-collar workers or retired.

Second, the prosecution tried to teach that jury about HOW DNA evidence works. That might put me to sleep, and I have a degree in engineering. They unfortunately spent way too much time numbing the minds of the jurors.

Third, the defense (successfully and rightly, IMHO) threw the race card at Mark Fuhrman's testimony. He would have been the best witness as far as physical evidence (gloves, socks, watch cap and where they were found), but his apparent racism made his testimony very suspect, to say the least.

Fourth, the tracking of the DNA evidence had a doubt cast over it by some apparently careless record keeping. It seems highly unlikely that a genuine mistake was made (getting samples mixed up), but all you need for an acquittal is "reasonable doubt."

When I heard that he had been arrested, I really didn't believe it was possible that he could have done the crime. It was impossible to ignore the trial - it was EVERYWHERE the whole time it was going on, and during that time, I came to believe that the evidence showed clearly that he had killed two people. I know I didn't want it to be true, but there was and is no doubt in my mind that it is.

I've sat on juries myself, and although they weren't anything like the OJ trial, I found that a lot of defense lawyering is psychology. You need to make the jury have doubts about what prosecution is presenting. If you do that, you win, no question about it.

Johnnie Cochran and the rest of OJ's team of lawyers did an excellent job. They knew how to create that doubt in the minds of those 12 people. If I ever get my RE in a sling, Johnnie Cochrane is who I want for my hired gun.

[OperaTenor]

Yeah, but can you afford him? Just reiterating my point about the best justice money can buy.

[barfle]

If I had to afford him, I probably could, but then I couldn't retire. Ever. The rest of my life wouldn't be in prison, though. Not that I would expect to need him, but just in case of mistaken identity, who knows?

[Parrothead]

This may be naive, but I thought it was the object of a trial to find guilt or innocence in the accused. I don't mean guilt or innocence on paper. I mean wheather that person was truly guilty or truly innocent. In my opinion, the O.J. trial was not about finding out whether O.J. really did it or not.

Let me get this straight; O.J. was found "responsible" for the deaths of two people (by multiple stab wounds), but not found guilty of murder. The purist in me is getting a headache trying to comprehend that one. It's like someone saying, "It depends on what your definition of "is" is." "Is" is what it is. :confused:

Either he did it or he didn't.

[dkm32]

I'm not a lawyer...nor, do I play one on TV. I don't know the legal angles of this. Don't even come close.

But is has to do with burden of proof (or, as one local newscaster said, "Proof of the bourbon"). Anyway, the doubt factor, if you will. For a criminal trial (I believe), it has to be without a shadow of doubt. For the civil trial, it's reasonable doubt. And, (again, I believe), the split of the jury has something to do with it. To convict in a criminal trial, all 12 jurors have to give the person thumbs down. In civil, it's the majority.

I know there are quite a few trials where the accused is found innocent of criminal charges (or the prosecutor declines to trial the person), but guilty in a civil trial.

[BenODen]

I agree with you Parrothead. It would be much nicer if Court was about finding *The Truth* but unfortunately it's not. I've watched quite a few episodes of "The Practice" where they are almost always defending 3 people a week. (Why not 4 or 2? Because 3 causes just the right number of synapses to fire as you juggle plots in your head, I'm sure there are studies that show this someplace.)

From this, and all the other media attention to court cases, it has been is drilled into me that the defense's job is not to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person didn't do what they're accused of. In a criminal proceeding it's the defense's job to cast just enough shadow on the prosecution's case that one person (a the jurist) can disagree on whether the prosecution has Proved that the defendent did it. It's messy, most certainly, but it's amazing that there aren't more hung juries that just can't unanimously make up their minds. From the defense point of view, a civl case seems very hard. The Majority of the jury sounds right, but even if not, you have to provide reasonable objections to the Prosecution, instead of just 'shadows of doubt' that are thrown onto the case in Criminal cases. It's not good enough in a civil case to show the existence of someone else without an airtight alabi and has motive, if the rest of the case makes sense, for instance.

Another part of the trick may be that in cases where the facts aren't debatable and point to the defendant, he/she will accept a plea bargan. So in court, by definition almost, the evidence is of the less conclusive variety, or the Defendant has Lawyers good at using their brains to throw shadows onto a case.

If we had all the information about a case, we could talk about truth, but unfortunately, that just won't happen here on earth.

Just my take on the whole thing.

-Benito

[blueiris]

Ah yes, "The Practice" written by a lawyer so it must be true!

The age to called for jury service in California is 18. I disagree that it's "either blue collar workers or retired". I've sat on on four juries and I'm neither of the above.

[OperaTenor]

Parrothead, I'm with you.

[barfle]

In criminal trials, the burden on the prosecution is to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt." The defense simply has to create "reasonable doubt" and the verdict has to be "not guilty."

In civil trials, the case is decided on a "preponderance of evidence," which is a much lower standard of proof.

As far as who sits on juries, Leigh, please note that I said "most." The times I was on juries in California, I was a wage-earner and my employer did not attempt to get me out of it. I did not see any executive types sitting in the jury room with the rest of us. When I was salaried, my employer successfully kept me from serving. The primary qualification remains that you don't have a way to avoid it. My wife was called for jury duty, and although she's an architect, she was working as an independent contractor at the time, and couldn't get out of it.