Guilty on all Counts: OJ Simpson

So? Preponderance of evidence isn't the standard for murder cases. Reasonable doubt is, a tougher standard to make. They didn't make it. Therefore the only reasonable verdict was not guilty.

I contend that they did. But, that's what makes for hung juries and public opinion.

I think it's a balance between "preponderance of the evidence" and "reasonable doubt." I was a juror on the rape-murder trial that lasted three months, one of the longest in Santa Clara County. There were no eye-witnesses, the the preponderance of the evidence is what we found to be over-whelming, and enough to convict him of the crime. The criminalists provided us with their opinion about the evidence they found, and the probability that it connected the defendant with the crime. We had several scientists on the jury who refuted their math. We almost had a hung jury. He's now spending his life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In a criminal trial the evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict, in a civil trial a simple preponderance of the evidence can determine a verdict. In O.J.''s civil trial they also had additional evidence against him--a photo of him in the shoes that left the bloody footprints at the murder scene--that was not available at the time of the criminal trial.

He was found guilty in his civil trial--so, although he escaped conviction and jail time in the criminal trial, the civil judgement found him responsible for those two deaths.

He has continued to act in a reckless manner. I consider him to be a dangerous man.

I am happy that justice will finally be served. The man belongs in jail.

Oj Simpson....raped in prison....that has a nice ring to it...

Preponderance of evidence--what jes and firfly said. The term isnt even a concern in a criminal trial. Preponderance of evidence means its a simple majority vote. Without a reasonable doubt means that the jury must be unanimous.

I guess jes and I stand alone in not being surprised at the 95 OJ verdict. I too had so many questions just as a rabid audience (and we didnt even have all the evidence). I did have major questions that werenever adressed by the prosecution. So he , as jes said, got justice in 95. He apparently got justice in 08.
JES-Will there be an automatic appeal on this? Is Fla a state that does that?

the fact that Simpson was guilty but got off does not mean that I am surprised that he did, there are consequences when judges are incompetent.

There is no way that this trial was "stand alone", the 95 trial is seared into the national consciousness, nothing about Simpson could ever after be disconnected from that trial. Given the events that took place, and the sleaziness of the men he robbed, any other perp would have gotten a slap on the wrist. Simpson was charged up the ass and taken to trial for one reason, he is Simpson. The fact that he was found guilty might not be though, they may have found 12 Americans who are not out for his hide.

I stand with you...the trial was a circus and a clusterfuck.

Did OJ ever find the killer of his wife?

Yes, he looked in the mirror.

What does that mean? Surely you are not implying that he was the killer.

Yes I am.

I don't care what happens to OJ, but I do feel sorry for his children. It's one thing to f' up your own life, but he has destroyed their lives as well.

I meant the evidence shows him guilty. A slip of the pen and people are all over it. My personal opinion.

one thing that I like is that the co-defendant will also spend the rest of his life in jail. He could have done the exact same behaviour with anyone other than Simpson and not been this much punished. He is rung up for associating with Simpson....

Simpson had a lot of help making a life for himself while screwing the families of those he killed out of their civil judgment, it is nice to see someone pay for helping Simpson.

Whether Simpson committed murder was moot in this case. But that he was found guilty for the current crimes is emotionally satisfying because most of us believe without any reasonable doubt that he did get away with murder and because he is known to be an angry, violent bully and finally he is being punished for being who he is. What makes it less emotionally unsatisfying in this case is that there were no 'good guys' or victims involved and that makes it more difficult to feel righteous that justice was done.

According the CNN reports on television late last evening, the sentencing is set for December 6, 2008.

what about appeals?

firefly wrote: "He was found guilty in his civil trial--so, although he escaped conviction and jail time in the criminal trial, the civil judgement found him responsible for those two deaths."

Technically, the jury in the civil action did not find him "guilty" of murder, they found him "liable" for wrongful death.

It is ironic, however, that the current conviction is a result of O.J.'s misconduct following the entry of the civil judgment against him. Acting without scruples, O.J. unlawfully hid his assets (by placing those assets in the hands of equally unscrupulous people) in order to evade using those assets to partially satisfy the judgment.

Although I personally believe the State of Nevada prosecutors overcharged O.J.--throwing the entire book and the kitchen sink at him--O.J. should have realized his pariah status within the law enforcement sphere and acted far more cautiously. In other words, he has no one really to blame for his current circumstances other than himself.

The TV legal beagles are saying that OJ's lawyers will appeal it on several points, but doesn't think they'll succeed, because of how this trial was performed starting with the selection of the jury. One of the major complaint was there were no black juror.