Okay, OJ Simpson was tried twice for the murder of two people right? But doesn't the 5th Amendment say there is no double jeopardy? So how come he was tried twice for the same crime?I'm learning about the Amendments and court cases in History class and this thought came up.
-
OJ Simpson trials?
-
From what I remember, the first trial was by the municipal courts and the second trial was a civil trial...and the charges were different the second time around. Because the same ruling of evidence does not apply in a civil court, they were able to convict him there.
-
He wasn't exactly "tried" twice. The first trial was a criminal proceding in which he was found not guilty.The second case was a civil law suit brought by the families. it is odd, and some people have criticized this, but one can be acquitted in a criminal trial and yet sued civilly for the offense nonetheless.Double jeopardy is real. One can't be criminally retried for a crime after a verdict has been decided.
-
Karma came back and bit him on the ass hardcore... love it!
-
how??
I forget:S
-
From what Rad talked about.OJ is now in prison, and gonna be there the rest of his life.
-
Good! That fucking idiot. He deserves it
-
Agreed!!It was more than just stealing his mementos backs, I believe he and his crew assaulted the guy and also held him at gunpoint. Some of what happened was caught on videotape. lol.
-
good. He should have gone to jail the first time.
-
The juice finally got squeezed out.
-
It is a way weird situation indeed. I don't think it's right either. It seemed obvious to me that the only defence he needed in the civil trila was the result of the criminal trial."I was acquitted of the murders, therefore I am not liable for wrongful death"But, America having one of the most litigious natures of any society, the legal system is designed to accomodate it. I'm not sure where else in the world you can sue someone for doing something that a previous court decided that he did not do.
-
In a criminal trial guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but in civil trials the test is the balance of probabilities, so it's a weaker test. If it appeared there was a probability of 51% that he did it, that would not be enough to find him guilty in a criminal trial, but enough to find against him in a civil trial. So the result of a criminal trial is not a sufficient defence to a civil trial.
-
that is quite true. It still seems hoakey to me though
-
Ohh okay i get it now.
-
Originally Posted By: unsupervised
that is quite true. It still seems hoakey to me though
I can live with hoakey if it puts that slug in the slammer.
-
but it didn't, I just cost him a shitload of cash.I'm sure the Brown and Goldman families have had their grief relieved by several million bucks
-
Originally Posted By: IneligibleIn a criminal trial guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but in civil trials the test is the balance of probabilities, so it's a weaker test. If it appeared there was a probability of 51% that he did it, that would not be enough to find him guilty in a criminal trial, but enough to find against him in a civil trial. So the result of a criminal trial is not a sufficient defence to a civil trial. That is precisely correct, but I agree with Unsupervised to some extent. This is an issue that has been debated by well meaning people on both sides of the fence. I've always been uncomfortable with the idea that a person can be held civilly liable for a crime when they have not been convicted of that crime. The 51% criterion is really an awfully low standard of evidence to financially destroy a person. It's about on a par with flipping a coin to decide. I would at least like to see a little bit higher standard of evidence than that.
-
The idea of a civil trial is two private people in dispute, so if the defendant wins the plaintiff loses, so I suppose the law doesn't want to take sides. There is a requirement that the plaintiff must make a reasonable case, though.
