O.J Simpson - Did he do it?

[lamont]

"an NBC poll taken in 2004 reported that, although 77% of 1,186 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only 27% of blacks in the sample believed so, compared to 87% of whites."

 

[nereas]

"an NBC poll taken in 2004 reported that, although 77% of 1,186 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only 27% of blacks in the sample believed so, compared to 87% of whites."

That polling data then also suggests that 27% of African-Americans and 13% of European-Americans are not biased or prejudiced in their judgments. Two to one comparatively speaking! Fascinating!

"Guilty" remember means all the elements of proof for the stipulations of the felony are met.

Most lay-people have no idea nor do they even think to ask what are these elements or stipulations of the law?

 

[lamont]

"Guilty" remember means all the stipulations of the felony are met.

that's only the legal definition of guilty. the dictionary is not that restrictive.

 

[do it easy]

There's a big difference between knowing that someone has done something and being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. That's why there can be the strange situation of OJ being found not guilty of murder but then being found civilly liable in the wrongful death lawsuit. Perhaps rather than "not guilty", the proper phrase is that he "was not found guilty".

I'm not a lawyer, so don't sue me if this is wrong, but criminal cases have a different standard than civil cases. Criminal cases have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil cases are weighed on a preponderance of evidence.

 

[ScubaTexan]

I'm not a lawyer, so don't sue me if this is wrong, but criminal cases have a different standard than civil cases. Criminal cases have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil cases are weighed on a preponderance of evidence.

You are indeed correct, sir. Looks like you were wide awake and paying attention in high school Civics class.

 

[nereas]

You are indeed correct, sir. Looks like you were wide awake and paying attention in high school Civics class.

But I will bet that he is still clueless as to what the respective elements of proof are for the stipulations of first degree murder?

 

[do it easy]

But I will bet that he is still clueless as to what the respective elements of proof are for the stipulations of first degree murder?

First, someone has to die!
Second, someone has to be the killer.
Third, evidence, such as a tight fitting bloody glove, or maybe a confession that has been extracted under duress. Even better would be diagrams with arrows or a miniature model!!

I rest my case, you honor!

Seriously, I am clueless since I've never been on trial for murder 1. Maybe you could enlighten us?

 

[nereas]

First, someone has to die!
Second, someone has to be the killer.
Third, evidence, such as a tight fitting bloody glove, or maybe a confession that has been extracted under duress. Even better would be diagrams with arrows or a miniature model!!

I rest my case, you honor!

Seriously, I am clueless since I've never been on trial for murder 1. Maybe you could enlighten us?

But then I would feel compelled to charge you tuition for a law class as well.

 

[garyfotodiver]

Who cares? This is much more boring than Britney or Paris ever could be. They are (somewhat) pleasing to the eye.

 

[Mako Mark]

(putting hand up to ask a dumb question...)

not being that familiar with the American judicial system, can someone explain in "American law for dummies" terms the difference between a criminal and civil suit is and how if he is found not guilty under the first that he can go through another trial for the same crime?

If you can make me understand that, I will explain the rules of cricket to you...