OJ questions the Double Jeopardy Court System...

[007]

And if I'm not mistaken, during OJ's crimminal trial, only certain evidence could be used by the state, whereas in the civil trial, damn near anything could be used for evidence. Makes a difference when trying to convince a jury.

 

[Hobbit]

And if I'm not mistaken, during OJ's crimminal trial, only certain evidence could be used by the state, whereas in the civil trial, damn near anything could be used for evidence. Makes a difference when trying to convince a jury.

Yeah, basically, Simpson and Blake weren't guilty enough to meet the reasonable doubt standard, especially without the dismissed evidence, but they were more guilty than innocent, which is good enough for civil court.

 

[insein]

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

Why would i need a good one? I am competant. I can prove my innocence, unless of course the law is so convaluded that the "common man" can't understand it.

Two people can solve their difference in a court of law with a judge making the decision. They both plead their case and then the judge makes a decision.

For a criminal trial, you bring your evidence before the court and you show the jury that you are innocent. Why would you need a lawyer unless you are accused of a crime that isnt so cut and dry by the law?

You will never convince me that a lawyer is needed in a society.

 

[Hobbit]

Why would i need a good one? I am competant. I can prove my innocence, unless of course the law is so convaluded that the "common man" can't understand it.

Two people can solve their difference in a court of law with a judge making the decision. They both plead their case and then the judge makes a decision.

For a criminal trial, you bring your evidence before the court and you show the jury that you are innocent. Why would you need a lawyer unless you are accused of a crime that isnt so cut and dry by the law?

You will never convince me that a lawyer is needed in a society.

A lawyer is needed to ensure as fair a trial as possible. Would you know exactly when to object when the prosecution is "leading the witness?" Do you know what kind of evidence can be ruled inadmissible? Are you skilled enough in interrogation to reveal a purjured or questionable witness? There's hundreds of books on law that you would have to know in order to be sure you got a fair trial with all the rights you're entitled to. Most people don't have the kind of time to memorize said books for one trial, so we have people who make a living at it. Those people are called lawyers.

 

[dilloduck]

A lawyer is needed to ensure as fair a trial as possible. Would you know exactly when to object when the prosecution is "leading the witness?" Do you know what kind of evidence can be ruled inadmissible? Are you skilled enough in interrogation to reveal a purjured or questionable witness? There's hundreds of books on law that you would have to know in order to be sure you got a fair trial with all the rights you're entitled to. Most people don't have the kind of time to memorize said books for one trial, so we have people who make a living at it. Those people are called lawyers.

And just exactly who made the laws so convoluted with "hundreds of books"?

 

[Mr. P]

A lawyer is needed to ensure as fair a trial as possible. Would you know exactly when to object when the prosecution is "leading the witness?" Do you know what kind of evidence can be ruled inadmissible? Are you skilled enough in interrogation to reveal a purjured or questionable witness? There's hundreds of books on law that you would have to know in order to be sure you got a fair trial with all the rights you're entitled to. Most people don't have the kind of time to memorize said books for one trial, so we have people who make a living at it. Those people are called lawyers.

Exactly…And some other things I don’t think insein understands are..

If he’s say falsely accused of a criminal act, he may be sitting in jail awaiting his hearing without bond/bail.
If he’s lucky enough to have a legal library available can he figure out what pleadings, motions, depositions are he must conduct before trial. Not to mention knowing when to conduct these things due to deadlines. When all it would take is a call to an Attorney that after years of practice knows the ropes and may even get him out of jail before trial.

Thinking you could successfully defend yourself in such a case is as insane as
thinking that with some books on aviation you could operate a jet airplane and penetrate a cold front with level 5 thunderstorms successfully. You’ll die.

 

[Mr. P]

And just exactly who made the laws so convoluted with "hundreds of books"?

The people we elected.

 

[Hobbit]

And just exactly who made the laws so convoluted with "hundreds of books"?

Why, the people of the state you live in made it that way, as well as the interperetations of the Constitution of the United States. The law against unlawful search and seizure alone can require a skilled debater to get the judge to fall on one side or another. Then there's the sheer number of statutes, guidelines for seperating one statute from another (murder as opposed to manslaughter), and clarifications that were added after a scrupulous defendent took advantage of a statute that wasn't specifically worded. In a perfect legal, "murder" would only take a couple of sentences to describe and anybody capable of reading could understand it easily. However, this isn't a perfect legal system, and if the definition doesn't cover every aspect conceivable, some lawyer will come along that wants to interperet it differently than others have and the judge will allow it, thus allowing a person who would otherwise be a murderer get off with manslaughter. I mean, if the child molestor statute just said, "It's illegal to have sex with somebody under 18," there'd be some lawyer out there who would claim it meant 18 inches.

 

[Gunny]

Regardless the legal mumbo-jumbo involved, it is absurd, not to mention illogical, to find someone liable for the death of if that person has been found not guilty of causing the death of.

In both cases, civil punishment was used as a weapon by the juries to "right a perceived wrong" because most consider both Simpson and Blake guilty, regardless the decision rendered by the criminal court.

 

[insein]

Like i said, lawyers have been working for Decades if not centuries to create a system where they are not only useful but are neccasary.

Who leads a witness? A lawyer. Who knows when to object to a leading of the witness? A lawyer. Who knows all the loopholes to trick a jury and then who is needed to counter those loopholes? Lawyers.

Whatever happened to someone presenting their case and then the other person trying to defend themselves? Now we have a game much like politics where 2 lawyers are the players and they are gambling with people's lives. Politicians have made a situation for themselves that makes them NECCASSARY to the survival of many people. Lawyers have done the same thing.

I assume you are a lawyer, Mr P or are going to law school. The only reason we need lawyers is to combat the other lawyers that exist. How is that a neccassary reason to have any profession? We need to attack where the problem lies, with the laws. The problem is that so many people go about living their lives that they dont have time to pay attention to what gets passed on a day to day basis until it effects them personally later on. By then its much too late.

Its a bad situation and i have ideas how to fix it but it requires alot of support from politicians which have no intention of relinquishing the power that they yield.

 

[Hobbit]

Regardless the legal mumbo-jumbo involved, it is absurd, not to mention illogical, to find someone liable for the death of if that person has been found not guilty of causing the death of.

In both cases, civil punishment was used as a weapon by the juries to "right a perceived wrong" because most consider both Simpson and Blake guilty, regardless the decision rendered by the criminal court.

No, it's really not, because being found "not guilty" is not the same as being found "innocent." The verdicts in the OJ and Blake cases were not that they had been proven innocent, but that there wasn't enough evidence to prove them guilty. In both the civil and criminal trials, the case for his innocence was weaker than the case for his guilt. However, in the criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution, meaning their case has to be a great deal better than the opposition. In a civil trial, there's not this burden, meaning that the stronger case wins with no advantage being given to either side.

Also, when somebody is being sued for wrongful death, they may be essentially getting tried for the same action, but under the federal interpretation of the double jeapordy statute, trying someone under a different court system is not double jeapordy, which is why, in some cases, a person my be acquitted for murder in a state trial, but then be tried again in federal court for violating a person's civil rights.

 

[pegwinn]

No, it's really not, because being found "not guilty" is not the same as being found "innocent." The verdicts in the OJ and Blake cases were not that they had been proven innocent, but that there wasn't enough evidence to prove them guilty. In both the civil and criminal trials, the case for his innocence was weaker than the case for his guilt. However, in the criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution, meaning their case has to be a great deal better than the opposition. In a civil trial, there's not this burden, meaning that the stronger case wins with no advantage being given to either side.

Also, when somebody is being sued for wrongful death, they may be essentially getting tried for the same action, but under the federal interpretation of the double jeapordy statute, trying someone under a different court system is not double jeapordy, which is why, in some cases, a person my be acquitted for murder in a state trial, but then be tried again in federal court for violating a person's civil rights.

While you have explained adequately why it is correct, nothing anyone has said makes it right.

 

[Hobbit]

While you have explained adequately why it is correct, nothing anyone has said makes it right.

Ok, try this on for size. A guy kills your wife. You could sue him first if you wanted, and get compensation for your loss, but the state wants a bite out of him, first. Now, let's say that the evidence leaves no doubt that he was the guy that killed your wife, no doubt whatsoever. However, he hires himself a slick lawyer that gets half that evidence excluded. Now, you get no justice, no money, no apology, no semblance of anything in return for the loss of your wife simply because the state couldn't adequately back up their evidence gathering techniques. Does this mean that, due to the heavy advantage to the defendant and a bit of ineptness that's beyond your control, that you now should have no shot at getting compensation out of this guy? He should just get off scott free because he has a slick lawyer that can poke just enough holes in the case to get him acquitted?

 

[pegwinn]

Ok, try this on for size. A guy kills your wife. You could sue him first if you wanted, and get compensation for your loss, but the state wants a bite out of him, first. Now, let's say that the evidence leaves no doubt that he was the guy that killed your wife, no doubt whatsoever. However, he hires himself a slick lawyer that gets half that evidence excluded. Now, you get no justice, no money, no apology, no semblance of anything in return for the loss of your wife simply because the state couldn't adequately back up their evidence gathering techniques. Does this mean that, due to the heavy advantage to the defendant and a bit of ineptness that's beyond your control, that you now should have no shot at getting compensation out of this guy? He should just get off scott free because he has a slick lawyer that can poke just enough holes in the case to get him acquitted?

Try this on for size. I kill him and beat his dishonest lawyer. I also beat the inept prosecutor. Point is, that if he is found not guilty, he is not guilty. The system is broken and needs to be addressed in this area to ensure that a civil judgement can be attached only to a criminal conviction.

 

[Hobbit]

Try this on for size. I kill him and beat his dishonest lawyer. I also beat the inept prosecutor. Point is, that if he is found not guilty, he is not guilty. The system is broken and needs to be addressed in this area to ensure that a civil judgement can be attached only to a criminal conviction.

See, this is where I think you don't quite get it. A "not guilty" verdict in court is not actually a verdict of "not guilty," it's a verdict of "not guilty enough." If a person is actually found to be proven innocent, he's not just acquitted, but exhonerated, meaning he's truly been found innocent and is protected from the civil cases, if for no other virtue then that his case is strong enough to hold up. In our justice system, an acquittal without exhoneration is basically a verdict of, "guilty, but not really guild enough to meet the burden of proof."

 

[dilloduck]

Try this on for size. I kill him and beat his dishonest lawyer. I also beat the inept prosecutor. Point is, that if he is found not guilty, he is not guilty. The system is broken and needs to be addressed in this area to ensure that a civil judgement can be attached only to a criminal conviction.

Civil judgements have been made popular by lawyers who get filthy rich because only they can maneuver through the hoops that they themselves created. When other filthy rich and guilty men get off of a criminal charge due to legal (but expensive) manipulation another lawyer can make some bucks to convict him in a civil court.
Who has the better chance of beating a charge? The millionaire or the begger?

 

[pegwinn]

See, this is where I think you don't quite get it. A "not guilty" verdict in court is not actually a verdict of "not guilty," it's a verdict of "not guilty enough." If a person is actually found to be proven innocent, he's not just acquitted, but exhonerated, meaning he's truly been found innocent and is protected from the civil cases, if for no other virtue then that his case is strong enough to hold up. In our justice system, an acquittal without exhoneration is basically a verdict of, "guilty, but not really guild enough to meet the burden of proof."

Actually I do get it. I simply reject it as being "right and proper" as opposed to legal. I have never heard of someone being found "innocent" in the context you describe. When I say never, I mean never in the I am over forty and read a lot of news on crime and never have I heard that. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But it's as rare as a bloody steak. Just one more reason to introduce legislation to allow poly/drugs/vsr as part of the investigation process. And to build a no-shit truth machine eventually for use in court.

 

[Hobbit]

Actually I do get it. I simply reject it as being "right and proper" as opposed to legal. I have never heard of someone being found "innocent" in the context you describe. When I say never, I mean never in the I am over forty and read a lot of news on crime and never have I heard that. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But it's as rare as a bloody steak. Just one more reason to introduce legislation to allow poly/drugs/vsr as part of the investigation process. And to build a no-shit truth machine eventually for use in court.

I've seen it many times, the press just usually doesn't cover that aspect of it unless the person brings it up in an interview, which usually means they're cocky and don't get exhonerated.

 

[pegwinn]

I've seen it many times, the press just usually doesn't cover that aspect of it unless the person brings it up in an interview, which usually means they're cocky and don't get exhonerated.

Too bad court isn't based on truth and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Gunny]

Actually I do get it. I simply reject it as being "right and proper" as opposed to legal. I have never heard of someone being found "innocent" in the context you describe. When I say never, I mean never in the I am over forty and read a lot of news on crime and never have I heard that. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But it's as rare as a bloody steak. Just one more reason to introduce legislation to allow poly/drugs/vsr as part of the investigation process. And to build a no-shit truth machine eventually for use in court.

Actually, OJ was found innocent, IIRC. But I agree with you. Semantics. If one is not guilty of the crime, then it is not right to find them financially liable for the wrongful deaths of.

What the civil court is being used as is retribution by a public where the majority does not agree with the criminal verdict. That's just wrong, no matter how you slice it.