10 years later...The OJ Trial

The OJ Trial

An article by Bill Simmons on ESPN about the OJ Simpson trial. Interesting read since I never really knew anything about it as I was 5-6 years old at the time.

Great read, thanks Colin.

When Simpson was found responsible for the murders in the civil trial -- ordered to pay $33.5 million to the Brown and Goldman families -- some believed this made up for the criminal trial. I don't see it. He's still walking the streets. Still playing golf. Still giving interviews. Still living a lie. And even though he has to turn all income over to the families, he still lives a decent lifestyle off his NFL pension. Most of his friends deserted him, and he's somewhat of a social pariah, but anything's better than prison.

This has always seemed foolish to me. If he's innocent, how can be ordered to pay damages to the family? If he's found not guilty in the criminal trial, how can be found guilty in the civil trial? I won't claim to be an expert on the law, but it seems to me that the verdict of the two trials should be the same. It just seems a really foolish technicality to me.

In a civil case you only need to prove at basically 51%, in a criminal trial you have to prove more like 95%. A criminal trial must hold no flaws. Simpsons defense team jumped on the flaws, painted the police as racists and as pointed out since few really understood DNA ten years ago they found him not-guilty.

They have this distinction because 90% of civil cases are like the ones you see on Judge Judy and the like. Basically he-said-she-said. If you had to prove it like you do a criminal case no one would ever win one.

Everyone knows OJ did it anyway. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably believes Michael Jackson when he says he didn't do anything with wittle chilluns (and then gave them $25 million to zip it.)

wasnt the reason oj didnt get convicted was because the glove didnt fit or something? Their was conspiracy theories going around that it was actually his son that did it and oj was covering for him i think. Not saying i believe it, but just interesting.

That's just the most famous line of Johnnie's "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

That was just one of the many things the defense team jumped on. But mostly they framed the police as racists that planted evidence. Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't have, it was their job after all, but that's how they did it right or wrong.

Watching family guy today (the episode 'Love Thy Trophy', if anyone with the DVD's wants to check this out) and at the beginning of the episode Tom Tucker (the news reporter) says "Breaking news, OJ is proved innocent. We have the identity of the real killer. But first...It's fall..." While he says that they show OJ golfing and his gloves don't fit. Never noticed it before.

In a civil case you only need to prove at basically 51%, in a criminal trial you have to prove more like 95%. A criminal trial must hold no flaws. Simpsons defense team jumped on the flaws, painted the police as racists and as pointed out since few really understood DNA ten years ago they found him not-guilty.

They have this distinction because 90% of civil cases are like the ones you see on Judge Judy and the like. Basically he-said-she-said. If you had to prove it like you do a criminal case no one would ever win one.

That part of the law makes sense, for the most part. But I still think that the verdict should be the same. After all, doesn't the not guilty verdict clear of him of those charges?

The difference in the verdict is basically saying "Well, there's not enough evidence to send you to jail for the murder, but there's enough evidence to force you to pay damages to the victim's family." It means that anyone with the right amount of money (and therefore the right representation) can commit a crime and get off scot-free.

The OJ Trial

An article by Bill Simmons on ESPN about the OJ Simpson trial. Interesting read since I never really knew anything about it as I was 5-6 years old at the time.

Are you serious I was about that age too and I knew full well about the OJ Simpson trial. I don't know why, but the 2 words that somehow got really drilled into my head are Ford Bronco.

All I'm saying is that O.J should've got the full 'benifet of the doubt'.
Like Andrew was saying, it don't make sense that he was aquitted of the murder charges but still forced to pay out to the families.

Anyway, it's a good waste of an NFL player. I don't know O.J's career off by heart (someone correct me if needed) but wasn't his career interupted by the case, hence him missing his prime of his career?

Anyway, I saw the interview on Entertainment Tonight where O.J was smiling, and he talked about the whole thing, the next day on E.T they went back to the scene of the crime. Even his own lawyers were saying he was guilty- in theory.

Macca

You're way off with that, OJ played in the 70's.

That part of the law makes sense, for the most part. But I still think that the verdict should be the same. After all, doesn't the not guilty verdict clear of him of those charges?

Yes, it clears him of the criminal charges he was found not guilty for. But the civil court system is completely seperate, none of it carries over except testimony.

I understand that. I just don't agree with the logic in that part of the law.

You're way off with that, OJ played in the 70's.

Thanks for correcting me mate, I appreciate the correction. I'm still learning all history stuff, I only started enjoying & watching the NFL what, 5 years ago?? And it was only the other day that I found out that Walter Payton died at age 40 something, so anyways. I've been doing my research so it's all good.

Hey Andrew... I thought that you're a student of law or something, cause you seem to know a hell of a lot about this sorta thing.

...I agree that if a person is cleared of a crime- that's it. If he ain't handed down with a sentance, he should just walk. No money, no hard labour crap. Anyways, I'm gonna step aside here and let Andrew and Ben fight this out since they know plenty more than me!

Cheers,
Macca

I only started enjoying & watching the NFL what, 5 years ago??

I only started following the NFL during the 2002 playoffs when Tampa won. But I absorb information like a sponge.

That part of the law makes sense, for the most part. But I still think that the verdict should be the same. After all, doesn't the not guilty verdict clear of him of those charges?

Yes, it clears him of the criminal charges he was found not guilty for. But the civil court system is completely seperate, none of it carries over except testimony.

true in the federal court they dont have to have an unanimous vote to get a convicition just a majority vote but in the criminal court u need a unanimous vote or the case is called a mistrial.
alot of the federal laws here in the US are messed up.
the voters pass new laws and then they get overturned because of the federal law.it doesnt make too much sense for the simple fact that we live in a democracy.

Hey Andrew... I thought that you're a student of law or something, cause you seem to know a hell of a lot about this sorta thing.

No, I'm not a law student. I only have a basic understanding of the law.

Anyways, I'm gonna step aside here and let Andrew and Ben fight this out since they know plenty more than me!

Ben probably does, I probably don't. What I've posted is just my opinion of how that part of the law works, I don't speak from advanced knowledge.