3 ms·

Not to say I agree or disagree with this jury, but a dismissal or acquittal does not necessarily mean the case had no merit. OJ was acquitted, after all, and ma

Not to say I agree or disagree with this jury, but a dismissal or acquittal does not necessarily mean the case had no merit. OJ was acquitted, after all, and many, many people are wrongfully found guilty.

hnnewguy 12y ago
>OJ was acquitted, after all Do you know something that the jurors don't? Reasonable doubt. That's how the system works.
- esrauch 12y ago
  > Do you know something that the jurors don't? This is weird question, because in OJ's case we know a lot of things that the jurors didn't. Part of the critique of the prosecutors in the case was that they decided not to enter a lot of material things into evidence (e.g. the entire Bronco chase). Also, there are a lot of things that happened since then that the jurors did not know (because they didn't happen yet). He did write a book that was a description of himself committing the murders (but it is "hypothetical").
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > OJ was unanimously found guilty by the jury in his civil trial. Civil trials don't find guilt, they find liability. And, aside from the difference in evidentiary standards (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence), the actual fact question in a criminal murder charge is substantially different than that in a civil wrongful death charge -- one can be liable for wrongful death on the same pattern of facts under which one would not be guilty of murder.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> OJ was acquitted A civil finding of no liability is, in principal, a stronger (though still not certain, obviously) indication because the usual civil standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is symmetric, as opposed to the asymmetric standard (beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction) favoring acquittal in criminal cases.

3 ms·

Not to say I agree or disagree with this jury, but a dismissal or acquittal does not necessarily mean the case had no merit. OJ was acquitted, after all, and ma

by devindotcom 12y ago

hnnewguy 12y ago
>OJ was acquitted, after all Do you know something that the jurors don't? Reasonable doubt. That's how the system works.
- esrauch 12y ago
  > Do you know something that the jurors don't? This is weird question, because in OJ's case we know a lot of things that the jurors didn't. Part of the critique of the prosecutors in the case was that they decided not to enter a lot of material things into evidence (e.g. the entire Bronco chase). Also, there are a lot of things that happened since then that the jurors did not know (because they didn't happen yet). He did write a book that was a description of himself committing the murders (but it is "hypothetical").
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > OJ was unanimously found guilty by the jury in his civil trial. Civil trials don't find guilt, they find liability. And, aside from the difference in evidentiary standards (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence), the actual fact question in a criminal murder charge is substantially different than that in a civil wrongful death charge -- one can be liable for wrongful death on the same pattern of facts under which one would not be guilty of murder.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> OJ was acquitted A civil finding of no liability is, in principal, a stronger (though still not certain, obviously) indication because the usual civil standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is symmetric, as opposed to the asymmetric standard (beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction) favoring acquittal in criminal cases.