O.J. Simpson...why do people talk like he was guilty when he was found innocent in a court of law?

Question

Its the darndest thing. Whenever I hear his case discussed, people throw out the guilty thing like its universally understood to be true, but in fact, he was found innocent of the crime.

And also, how can you be found innocent in a court of law, but found guilty in a civil court..essentially contradicting the criminal case results.

I mean isnt that like being tried twice or something?

Answer 1

it's a shame that people have lost all respect for our justice system

Answer 2

He was found not guilty which is a legal term. Innocence is another matter altogether. This was a classic case of jury nullification. The defense was able to skew the facts and point the blame everywhere else but where it was supposed to be: Squarely on the hands of OJ.



Criminal trials require guilt to be found beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil trials only require a preponderance of the evidence. No - he was not being tried twice as civil torts and criminal proceedings are not the same.



Remember the Rodney King verdicts? They were found not-guilty of state crimes, but found guilty of federal crimes. Two different crimes with different penalties. This is not double jeopardy. When you sign up for the law enforcement career, you have to take into consideration that you are the government and if you act in a manner which violates civil rights, you can be charged federally as well as in the state courts.



Sidenote: Jury's and courts cannot decide innocence. They can only decide guilt or not-guilty.

Answer 3

Because the evidence was tainted by bigoted members of the police force, his guilt or innocence was impossible to determine in court. The 'beyond a reasonable doubt' issue could not be put to rest due to the doubts about the handling of the evidence.

He was not 'found innocent' - there is no such ruling.



The court of public opinion chooses what to make of the 'not guilty' court ruling - some are convinced that it means innocent, some that he was guilty but couldn't be convicted due to lack of evidence.



Civil courts have a looser standard of evidence - being able to use 'a preponderance' of evidence rather than holding to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Answer 4

Key pieces of evidence were deemed inadmissable and the jury was barred from hearing key testamony from investigators/witnesses. Much of which the public heard while the judge was deciding on the legality of introducing it into the proceedings.



When interviewed afterwards, when they were no longer sequestured; many of the jurors pointed this out - that missing pieces were filled in when they were allowed access to documents barred due to OJ's great defense team. (the best money could buy) In Criminal Court the burden of proof is on the prosecution and jail sentencing/fines are the result of a guilty verdict.



In Civil Court the burden of proof is on the defendent to prove their innocence and financial renumeration is the result of a guilty verdict. You loan your friend a $1,000 - they don't pay you back saying they thought it was a gift; you can sue and that person has to show hard evidence that you meant it as a gift vs. a loan.



When the burden of proof was on OJ, his lawyers were not able to prove that Nicole & Ron's death was not a direct result of OJ's prior actions leading up to their violent murder. Criminal Court proceedings do not way into Civil Court proceedings and typically vice versa.

Answer 5

There is a difference beyond guilty and guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyone with half a brain knows that OJ was guilty in this crime, but there was not enough evidence to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is the legal requirement for a guilty verdict. A lot of important evidence was not allowed because of mishandling by police involved in the case. Had this evidence been allowed, there very likely would have been a different verdict.

Answer 6

I think he was guilty. Who else had the motive to kill Nicole Brown? No one. Maybe he didn't do it, but I believe he at least had a hand in it. He had one of the most expensive lawyer teams; does an innocent man need that?



In a civil court, more types of evidence are permitted making it easier to find someone guilty.



It's not being tried twice (double jeapordy) because the crimes are different (wrongful death in the civil case).

Answer 7

LOL , you are too funny . OJ did it . We all know it . And just because he got off doesn't prove innocence either . It proves that people were fooled by Johnny Cochran , and guided by their fascination with celebrities . It also proves(and this is very well documented) that people were motivated by race and not reason .

Civil court is different than criminal court . In criminal court one is found guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt' . Reasonable btw does not mean total . However in civil court , one must only prove by 'preponderance of evidence' , which means as long as it's 51% more likely that he committed the crime , then damages will be awarded .



EDIT * -- GEEEESH . Do ya see who's agreeing with you ? ASHLEY . She seems to think that 'women' were killed and they were strangled !!!! Dear Ashley , OJ killed 1 woman and 1 man . They were not strangled . They were cut to pieces . The woman's neck was cut so severely she was almost completely decapitated .

Now you know the intelligence level of anyone who would agree with you that OJ was innocent . Unbelievable .

Answer 8

He was not found innocent, he was found not guilty, there's a world of difference between the two. If a court finds a man innocent, he is exonerated (sp), meaning he is found not only not guilty, but cleared of any responsibility for the charge. If he is found not guilty to a reasonable doubt, it means the jurors felt the prosecution did not find and present sufficient evidence for them to offer a guilty verdict, or that the defense has confused them well enough to feel that way.



In the case of OJ, it is my personal opinion that he is guilty. He was found responsible in the wrongfull death law suit that was brought against him were only the preponderance of evidence is needed to assign blame.

Answer 9

I think it was due to the DNA evidence narrowing the likelihood of someone other than OJ being about 1 in 5 billion. Unfortunately, the only people who serve on a jury are ones that can't understand such evidence. Lastly, the evidence requirement in a court of law is "beyond a reasonable doubt" to where the evidence in a civil court is based on the "preponderance of evidence", or if it's more likely than not that it happened.

Answer 10

In a court of law and a civil court you're being tried for two different (if similar) things. The court of law is attempting to uphold the law, while a civil court is a disagreement between two groups. Though cases tried in both courts may seem very similar, they often have slight differences that allow them both to occur.



The reason that everyone refers to O.J. as guilty is because he was guilty, he just had a lawyer who knew how to trick a jury with confusing monologues. (The Chewbacca Defense, look it up) By the way, remember that leather gloves shrink when wet...

Answer 11

He was not convicted of Murder. Murder is a crime, and the proof has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". Apparently the jury found some reasonable doubt.



He was also sued for Wrongful Death, which is a tort. The standard there is "more likely than not". The jury in that case didn't have to say absolutely that he was responsible, just that it was more likely that he was responsible than not responsible.



No, it's not like being tried twice, because the second trial wasn't criminal.

Answer 12

The people who talk about his guilt independent of the evidence are often white. For centuries black men could be convicted of eye rape of a white woman(having a white woman pass in your field of view) For centuries you could simply blame any crime on a black man and he would be lynched. For centuries, a white man guilty or not could not be found guilty of anything against a black person. Going into o.j. there was Goetz in NYC held as a hero and found not guilty of people he admitted to shooting. The Stuart case in Boston, were the inner-city was torn apart looking for an imaginary black man. Susan Smith where in the blink of the eye the crime went from hostile vile attack by a savage to a poor distressed mother. The tireless request for clemency for Karla Faye tucker. And worst of all, the jokes about the real killer and money preventing justice----Jon Bonet. She had the misfortune of not having her death blamed on a black man. White people could be outraged with the criminal justice system-- they had a chance to fix the system in L.A. after the Rodney king beating but by acquitting white cops, it seemed to be working just fine. Against this reality johnny Cochoran made the case simple. First the timeline--If he wasn't there then he couldn't do it but like Vick prior to any trial the media and white public had him lynched and were simply waiting on the conviction and didn't want evidence to get in the way. When I see them review the case on t.v. 2 major omissions always arise. First it's all bronco chase and rhymes in court but actually the missing footage is o.j. in chicago at the time of the murders. The second and most important is Barry Scheck the only white person in america, actually looking for justice head of the innocence project http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/137.php He was on t.v. forever during the trial going over the science and DNA(which they say the blacks didn't understand but they actually ignored while he was on). 205 wrongly convicted (mostly black men) exonerated. Make a donation everybody if you really want to see justice and fix the system. If the media would show the meeting with o.j. in chicago the following day and the barry scheck testimony, then the perception of another generation wouldn't be so skewed.

NO Weapon---No Witness--No Motive= innocence. Time of death is approximate and if anything moves 10 minutes either way then the whole case is the hoax it was. Nevermind killing 2 people at the same time with no reason. Pre-planning an impulsive murder(even ron goldman didn't know he would be there). The rationale was so full of racist stereotypes that no black person could take it seriously. Even more whites (in whole numbers) thought o.j. was innocent. The media tries to make blacks and whites into rival high schools for all of these cases. Poor jon bonet---needs a black suspect because she died a horrible death --had a shorter life and is never seen as important as Ron Goldman and his friend Nicole Brown(they never put the names in that order because it changes the possible reasons for the killings---plus its blond girl then Jew if you want public outrage.

Answer 13

The court of law and reality are two different things. Being found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it, just that it couldn't be completely proven to a jury that he did it.



Civil court has a much, much lower standard of proof. Criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt, civil only that you probably did it.

Answer 14

Did you know that none of the evidence of the car chase was admissible in court? I wonder why that is? Because I sure thought that was suspicious, didn't you?



THe justice system isn't perfect and doesn't always get the right verdict. If innocent people can be sent to jail, it stands to reason that guilty people can be set free.

Answer 15

you can be tried and found not guilty in criminal court and guilty in civil court because civil action doesn't require as much evidence. just because someone loses the civil court but wins the criminal court (not guilty) doesn't mean that they committed the crime.



it's not double jeopardy because your not really being tried twice for the same crime in criminal court.



i can't speak for all people but i personally believe the OJ was guilty because he was angry toward his ex wife Nicole and jealous because of her relationships with other men. he also wrote a book about how he would have killed her had it been him, and i wouldn't have believed that he would have wrote it but he did so...

he had the advantage of having Johnny Cochran as legal council because he could afford him.

if he had been a poor this would have been just another case, he would have been found guilty and we wouldn't even take a second glance at this story.

Answer 16

He was found not guilty. There is a big difference. Innocent means that there was proof that he did not and could not have committed the crime. Not guilty means only that there was reasonable doubt or there was a legal technality. If you watched the trial - Simpson is guilty. The jury found the LAPD guilty and let a murderer go free.

Answer 17

In a civil case, the bar is much lower for a conviction vs. a criminal case. If they had been at the same standard, he would not have been found guilty civilly.

In this case, it is not double jeopardy. because in the criminal case he had been charged with 1st degree murder but in the civil case he had been charged with being responsible for the deaths of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown-Simpson

Answer 18

You cannot be tried twice criminally for the same offense. But, he was only tried once criminally. The civil trial was for damages. He was found guilty in that trial. Fact is that most people view the verdict in the criminal trial as being based on race because the jury was made up of minorities, primarily blacks, who refused to see their football hero go down despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

Answer 19

In a court of law you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so the jurors could have felt that he was guilty but if the defense put reasonable doubt in their mind then he has to be not guilty. In civil court there is no reasonable doubt.

Answer 20

He wasn't found innocent. Our courts don't prove innocence only guilt. He was found "not guilty" meaning there wasn't sufficient evidence to find him guilty.



The burden of proof in a civil case is different than a criminal case. In the criminal case they have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case all you need is a preponderance of the evidence or "it is more likely he did it than not".

Answer 21

Not guilty means he was not guily by a reasonable doubt. This is saying the jury was basically not sure he did it. It also proves that people in California are idiots because the man obviously got away with murder.

Answer 22

He wasn't found innocent. He was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.



Innocent means affirmative proof that he did not do it. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt means the prosecution didn't make their case to a sufficient standard. But he was found liable at a civil trial, which has a lesser standard.

Answer 23

You don't have to be guilty of a crime to be sued. Man, this horse is dead. Stop beating it. The Crime was done in a fit of rage. Dozens of knife wounds. No one else had the motive and the passion to commit such a crime. He did it.

Answer 24

it wasnt that he was proven innocent.. there was just not enough evidence to support that he was guilty without doubt. that's what a high-priced lawyer team will get ya... they can sway the jurors... if i'm not mistaken, there were no jurors in the civil suit. only a judge.

Answer 25

He was not found innocent,he was found not guilty,which is a difference.He was not found guilty because of tainted evidence.If you remember,he was found guilty in a wrongful death suite though.That was a civil suit though,and he was not on trial for murder.Being an ex police officer,I recognized the way that murder trial was bungled.In my opinion,he is guilty.

Answer 26

I agree, it is the darndest thing.



I really believe he's being punished for being involved with a white-woman in the first place.



I don't believe OJ is guilty of Nicole's murder.

However, I deeply feel he's definitely guilty of being universally stupid since the court found him innocent of murder.



OJ says, "I didn't kill Nicole, but if I did...!"

How stupid can one man be?!

He's a free-roaming moron who needs to be locked up for being egregiously obtuse!

Answer 27

The travesty of so called justice is that O.J. is still breathing.



Being tried twice only applies to the state prosecuting not a civil case.



You only need one moron to vote against a conviction in a criminal case vs a simple majority in a civil case.



OJ website www./\/\/\/\/.com

Forward slash back slash....

Answer 28

I think he's gulity because he wrote a book that is called "If I Did It" that tells how he would have murdered those people if he did kill them. I personally think thats cruel to the deceased ones family. It's like he's mocking them and rubbing it in their face that he was set free!

Answer 29

his money got him out of it there was so much evidents showing he was guilty gee OJ why is your blood ,your hair (in a hat) your DNA at the crime scene also the glove don't fit yep i believe that one i wound never ware those butt ugly shoes OJ isn't this a pic of you wearing those shoes the list just keeps going and going

Answer 30

He was not found innocent, he was found not guilty. Until you can wrap your mind around the differences any other discourse is worthless.

Answer 31

He was found not guilty. Not innocent there is a big difference.

Answer 32

the only reason he is innocent is the police didn't get the warrent they needed to search his home, when they found the blood in his sink and vehicle the evidence was thrown out, if it weren't for that he would have been found guilty with so much evidence aginst him.

Answer 33

He was also found guilty in a court of law (actually more than one), just not the one that had Johnny Cochran in it.

Answer 34

He's guilty of killing two people. Who else had the motive and the means?

Answer 35

its another example of whats wrong with our justice system,in America you can't convict a black man,famous black man of killing a white woman,the NAACP would have a fit

Answer 36

It is universally understood that he got away with murder.

Answer 37

Because he was declared not guilty, it does not mean he did not do it.

Answer 38

I believe it's because the women were strangled by bare hands and O.J, being a football player, people tend to point fingers. But, I'm in the same boat as you on this.

Answer 39

He is still looking for the "real killer" Yeah, right!