OJ Simpson Civil Judgement

[cleoeo]

OJ Simpson has a "wrongful death" judgement for $33.5 million dollars against him stemming from the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, a crime of which he was acquitted.

[paulgro]

It doesn't matter. A civil only needs a preponderance of the evidence. You can win in a murder trial and lose in a civil suit. Maybe someone in law school can explain it better.

------------------
The Tired Coffee Man

[wendy66]

Paul is right, the rules are completely different in civil cases. The fact that he was "acquitted" was a travesty of justice. Thank God he can be made to "pay" (at least a bit) for his crime in a civil court!!!!!

I'm taking a law course in high school at the moment. It may be different in the US, but here, if it's a criminal case, it must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, while in civil case it must only be proven that they probably did it. It's like 99% sure compared to 51% sure.

[~wildangel~]

I went to Rottin.com and saw the pictures at the crime scene of Nicole Brown, her laying in blood, there was blood everywhere and footprints everywhere too! Beleive me by these pictures if they couldnt figure out HE did it, there lying!
I dont have the link to them because I dont want to put anything that greusome on here, but I do want to say that I beleive he's guilty as sin!

------------------
"Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot"


My Palace! (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/fairmayden.html)

[Scotslaw]

In a criminal trial, the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. As such, it is up to the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt, NOT for the accused to prove his innocence. As such, the prosecution has to provide evidence that the accused did the act in question. The standard of evidence must be sufficient to prove BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed the act. This means that if a reasonable doubt exists in your mind, then you MUST find the person not guilty.

In a civil case, the rules are different. Here there is no presumption as to who is right and who is wrong. Generally, the evidenciary burden is on the party bringing the case before the court, but the court need only be convinced on a balance of probabilities. In other words, who has the most likely version of events. Even if you have reasonable doubt, you may still find against the person.

My Evidence professor explained it well like this:

Imagine a court case is like a boxing match. In a civil case, both fighters need to land punches, and can win on points or by a knockout. In a criminal case however, the accused does not need to throw a single punch to win. The prosecution must throw all the punches, and requires a knockout to win it, otherwise the accused wins.

Anyone interested in the concept of reasonable doubt, the best textbook I can recommend to them is the film "12 Angry Men" which is absolutely fantastic both as a movie and a look at the legal system.

[~wildangel~]

Scott, don't alot of judges do alot of under the table profiting though when it comes to the "rich" criminals tho?
Because I was once knew someone that ended up killing someone and they were going to pay the judge under the table to get him less time, this never ended up happening though for whatever circumstances but the judge was all for it...which is bull****! I think that Judge Ito was payed, thats what I think...stupid arse judge
But I want to see that movie now that you mention it, it sounds good http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot"


My Palace! (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/fairmayden.html)

[Scotslaw]

Originally posted by ~wildangel~:
Scott, don't alot of judges do alot of under the table profiting though when it comes to the "rich" criminals tho?
Because I was once knew someone that ended up killing someone and they were going to pay the judge under the table to get him less time, this never ended up happening though for whatever circumstances but the judge was all for it...which is bull****! I think that Judge Ito was payed, thats what I think...stupid arse judge
But I want to see that movie now that you mention it, it sounds good http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/wink.gif



I have never heard of that happening, but if it does then I'm shocked, and think those judges should be locked up. However, unless they pay the jury as well, it won't alter the verdict, just the sentence.

Go see 12 Angry Men (the original, not the TV adaptation from 1998 I think it was). Henry Fonda is outstanding in it, as are the rest of the cast.

[Ada_Doom]

There are cases were something dodgy is blatantly going on. OJ is one of them. Steven Lawrence is another. The problem is proving it.

------------------
An organisation is like a tree full of monkeys, all on different branches at different levels, some climbing up, some falling down. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but !%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%s.

[~wildangel~]

I heard that was a good movie too, I'll have to check it out:}

Yes it is happening Ada, I know ppl that have done that...sad

But your right that they would have to pay the jury, but paying the judge helps them alot too...pathetic, the rich always win no matter whatthey do http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
"Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot"


My Palace! (http://fairmayden1.homestead.com/fairmayden.html)

[RayH]

All I know is that he owned the Bruno Magalli shoes!

Whoever did the murders wore expensive shoes and gloves. If I was going to kill somebody, my clothing would be old Payless shoes and rubber gloves from the supermarket!

[cleoeo]

I OJ Simpson still scouring California in search of the real killers so he can clear his name? He said he was going to do that.

[paulgro]

The killer must hang out at golf courses...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."

Ferrets Place (http://www.alferret.co.uk/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)