OJ questions the Double Jeopardy Court System...

[insein]

Wow, i agree with OJ. How can both he and Robert Blake be aquitted of murder but then be held liable financially for the deaths?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV7TU00.html

O.J.: Court System Is 'Double Jeopardy'
Nov 18 8:24 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent

O.J. Simpson on Friday questioned the system that allowed both him and actor Robert Blake to be found liable for murder after being acquitted in criminal court, calling it "double jeopardy."

"I still don't get how anyone can be found not guilty of a murder and then be found responsible for it in any way shape or form," Simpson said in a phone interview from his Florida home. "... If you're found not guilty, how can you be found responsible? I'd love to hear how that's not double jeopardy."

Simpson said he had no opinion about Blake's guilt or innocence in the murder of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, because he did not follow either trial closely.

Simpson said Blake was subjected to an unfair system in which a civil jury can essentially reverse a criminal jury's finding by using a lesser standard of proof in which jurors need be convinced only by "a preponderance of the evidence," meaning at least 51 percent.

"If that was the standard in criminal trials, only 51 percent, then so many people would be convicted that we'd have to build more jails," Simpson said. "The standard is the difference."

Simpson was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, then was sued in civil court where a jury found him liable for their deaths and awarded damages of $33.5 million. In Blake's case, the jury awarded $30 million, a figure Simpson said was suspiciously similar.

"It was too coincidental," he said.

In both trials, he said, lawyers were aware that the acquitted defendants were out of money and would not be able to pay the damages. Blake has said he's broke and owes money to the Internal Revenue Service. Before the trial began, Blake tried to settle with the family for $250,000, which he said was the remainder of his once-large fortune. They rejected the offer.

Simpson, a former football star at the University of Southern California and in the NFL, moved to Florida where he lives on a pension that is untouchable to satisfy court judgments.

"Trust me," Simpson said. "I'm happy with my life. I'm not complaining."

Simpson said he hopes that someone eventually will go the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the system that allows double trials.

"I'd love to see the Supreme Court rule on one of these cases," he said. He also noted that a defendant must have the money to post a bond to appeal the judgment, which is usually beyond their financial ability.

Asked if he had any advice for Blake, he said, "If Robert Blake has friends and family around him, he'll do fine. I would give him the same advice I gave Michael (Jackson). You've got your kid. Go and raise your kid."

He added, "To me, the thing that's most disturbing is to watch these lawyers grand standing. It's all for TV and for the book deals. I predict they will make a book deal. They did it in my case."

I absolutely agree with OJ here. Whether he did it or not, the prosecutor didnt prove that he did and therfore he was innocent. So how the hell are lawyers allowed to bring a civil trial against them for the same offense? ITs a fucked up way to punish someone who was not found guilty and an easy way for lawyers to make more money.

 

[Mr. P]

Wow, i agree with OJ. How can both he and Robert Blake be aquitted of murder but then be held liable financially for the deaths?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV7TU00.html



I absolutely agree with OJ here. Whether he did it or not, the prosecutor didnt prove that he did and therfore he was innocent. So how the hell are lawyers allowed to bring a civil trial against them for the same offense? ITs a fucked up way to punish someone who was not found guilty and an easy way for lawyers to make more money.

I understand your point….But

Two standards, two different potential punishments, that’s how I see it.

One is criminal, ya may get death so the standard of proof is high..
The second civil, a big fine so the standard is less. (Should be the same IMO).

Now if you were to try a “suspect” which would you go for?
You know he/she is guilty and can prove it. Do you go for a fine or the big banana?

Now, if you fail someone else can always take a bite out of their ass in civil court.
Keys here IMO, are “criminal” and “civil”.

Also, note there is a difference in charges. Murder for criminal maybe wrongful death for civil, not murder for both as far as I know. This alone makes TWO separate charges; therefore it can not be double jeopardy IMO.

I’m not a Lawyer, but I play one on TV.

 

[pegwinn]

I'm pretty sure that OJ dun it.
I'm pretty sure that Baretta dun it too.

But, they dun it good nuf dat duh crimnal trial said they wuz not guilty.

The civil trial only took place because they each have huge earning potential. If it was me, with no fundage, no civil trial.

This is just one more reason to allow lie detectore, drugs, etc. during investigations and push for the development of a truth machine to use in court.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Yes, the difference in the standard of proof in criminal vs. civil trials is key to the different outcomes. But, more importantly, as in OJ's case we have two separate systems to deal with different claims: a murder trial is brought by the State, in the interest of public justice, while a Wrongful Death suit (a tort) is brought by the victim's family.

OJ should shut his guilty trap and just be thankful he got away with it.

 

[insein]

The fact that a man can be aquitted of murder but liable for wrongful death disturbs me. It just seems to be a clever loophole for lawyers to get another shot at a guy.

I trust lawyers even less than i can throw them. Its not all of them, just 99% of them that are fucking up this country.

 

[Mr. P]

The fact that a man can be aquitted of murder but liable for wrongful death disturbs me. It just seems to be a clever loophole for lawyers to get another shot at a guy.

I trust lawyers even less than i can throw them. Its not all of them, just 99% of them that are fucking up this country.

They're working within the system insein. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[pegwinn]

They're working within the system insein. There's nothing wrong with that.

IN this instance the system is AFU. We need to fix it as quickly as MS fixes bugs.

 

[Mr. P]

IN this instance the system is AFU. We need to fix it as quickly as MS fixes bugs.

That was my back-handed point..It's not the Lawyers it's the system.

 

[dilloduck]

That was my back-handed point..It's not the Lawyers it's the system.

Lawyers built the system to serve their purposes.

 

[Abbey Normal]

In a civilized society, a private individual cannot decide who to prosecute someone for a crime, nor can they bring the charges. That is done by the State or Federal Gov't., not the family of a victim. If you change that, you will have chaos. Just because some stupid or star-struck jury fell prey to a defense attorney's shenanigans at the criminal trial, there should be no recourse for the family? Why shouldn't they have the right to sue for the loss of their loved one (and possibly the breadwinner) at the hands of a murderer?

If there is a problem here, it is with half-wit juries and slimy defense lawyers, not with the right to a civil trial by family members of the victim. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone would begrudge them that right.

 

[Mr. P]

Lawyers built the system to serve their purposes.

That is arguable. You know very well that all legislators are NOT lawyers.
Then drop back for yer 5 yard penalty and cuz you forgot the ‘We the People’ part.

 

[Mr. P]

....
If there is a problem here, it is with half-wit juries and slimy defense lawyers,....

I’ll agree juries are a problem. On the other hand there is a process to select them
in which both sides have a say.

As far as slimy defense lawyers I totally disagree.
If they are doing something illegal prosecute em. If however, they are forcing the state to PROVE their case, that's fine, the state MUST perform, after all it is the STATE that can imprison you, not the defense attorney, seems like a good system to me.

 

[dilloduck]

I’ll agree juries are a problem. On the other hand there is a process to select them
in which both sides have a say.

As far as slimy defense lawyers I totally disagree.
If they are doing something illegal prosecute em. If however, they are forcing the state to PROVE their case, that's fine, the state MUST perform, after all it is the STATE that can imprison you, not the defense attorney, seems like a good system to me.

What lawyers have done is to create a slimey system in the first place and then take advantage of it. The common man simply does not have equal access to the law.

 

[insein]

Lawyers built the system to serve their purposes.

exactly.

 

[insein]

That is arguable. You know very well that all legislators are NOT lawyers.
Then drop back for yer 5 yard penalty and cuz you forgot the ‘We the People’ part.

Look at who the legislators are. Former lawyers who have money and decide to run for office to help other lawyers do more lawyering.

Think about it. What do lawyers contribute to society? Absolutely nothing. They created a situation to where they are not only needed but are essential. Normal thinking people with a simple law system can settle their differences before a judge or face to face without the need of a lawyer IF the law system is simple enough. They made the law system so complicated that you have to have a lawyer to take care of trivial things.

In the the true "hunter/gatherer" sense of society, what do lawyers contribute?

 

[pegwinn]

If there is a problem here, it is with half-wit juries and slimy defense lawyers, not with the right to a civil trial by family members of the victim. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone would begrudge them that right.

The jury selection process is flawed. That should be a lottery with the judge deciding if you are fit/not fit to serve. I don't begrudge the family the right to sue at all. I just think that if you are found "not guilty" then you are not guilty. IF you are not guilty, it doesn't stand to reason that another half-wit jury should be able to find you guilty.

The use of drugs, lie detectors, vsa's during the investigative process would help. Better still would be a truth machine to use in court and a judge that has a tape that keeps saying "the witness will answer the question."

 

[Mr. P]

What lawyers have done is to create a slimey system in the first place and then take advantage of it. The common man simply does not have equal access to the law.

That's Bullshit and you and insein both know it, WE did it! Am I wrong?

Answer this guys...WHO elected these guys?

EDIT: BTW, yes the common man does have EQUAL access to the law.
Prove me wrong.

 

[insein]

That's Bullshit and you and insein both know it, WE did it! Am I wrong?

Answer this guys...WHO elected these guys?

EDIT: BTW, yes the common man does have EQUAL access to the law.
Prove me wrong.

Lawyers spend lots of money to get elected at all costs (e.g. John Edwards). They then get lobbied by their former buddies to toss them a bone. Then we get new vague laws that allow lawsuits galore on vague charges. Someone sues someone else. Trial ensues. Someone wins, someone loses, but the lawyers get all the money. Nice scheme. They managed to make an otherwise useless job into a lucrative one.

 

[Mr. P]

Lawyers spend lots of money to get elected at all costs (e.g. John Edwards). They then get lobbied by their former buddies to toss them a bone. Then we get new vague laws that allow lawsuits galore on vague charges. Someone sues someone else. Trial ensues. Someone wins, someone loses, but the lawyers get all the money. Nice scheme. They managed to make an otherwise useless job into a lucrative one.

Okay..Remember how scummy and useless they are if you ever need a good one.

 

[Hobbit]

It has to do with the burden of proof. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecutiong, meaning that the defendant doesn't have to prove his innoncence, only cause the jury to have any reasonable doubt of his guilt. If the defendant actually proves his innocence, he is exhonerated, which pretty much destroys any chance of winning a civil trial. However, being found 'not guilty' is a far cry from being found 'innocent.'

In a civil trial, it's a 50/50 burden of proof. No advantage is given. Whoever has the better case wins. The defendant doesn't need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He only needs to be proven guilty more than innocent. Now, if civil and criminal court was different, the victims would have to take a gamble. They've got much better odds getting recompensation in civil court, but the only way to get true justice is to roll the dice in criminal court.