Don’t wory about it; but you were probably thinking of “beyond the pale.”
Actually, I’m just reading this myself. Sounds like somebody’s having some fun with Wikipedia.
I paid exactly zero attention to this when it was happening. Can someone explain to me (in English, not lawyer-ese) how he could have been acquitted at a criminal trial but then found guilty in a civil trial? And is that the right term, “guilty”?
I am fully convince of OJ’s guilt. The only question: how did he do it so quickly? And, how did he dispose of the bloody clothes? Coroners say that arterial blood sprays out like a firehose-he must have been covered in blood. So who helped him clean up and dispose of the evidence?
The burden of proof in a tort case is substantially less demanding.
No, Simpson was not found “guilty” in his civil trial, he was found “liable.”
There are two tiers of law in the United States, criminal and civil. Criminal infractions are divided into lesser offenses, misdemeanors, and more serious offenses, felonies. The big dilineation in criminal felony cases is the right of the government to lock your ass up and even put you to death if you’re found guilty of certain crimes. The founding fathers, skittish from being bullied by the King, incorporated important protections for defendants into the Bill of Rights, including the fifth amendment right against self incrimination, the right to a fair and speedy trial, etc. Charges are filed by the government (e.g. State of California vs. O.J. Simpson) and not individuals.
The civil tier, on the other hand, involves private parties. Civil cases involve $$$, or the notion of making a party “whole” again. For instance, if you crash into me and cause my neck to be broken, my insurance company will sue you for damages. Note that it’s not the state or county suing you (State Farm Insurance (plaintiff) v. FlyingDragon (defendant)). Because a civil judgment doesn’t involve a potential loss of liberty, there is a lesser burden of proof on the plaintiff. We go from “beyond a reasonable doubt” for a criminal verdict of guilt to a “preponderance of the evidence” in civil cases. Therefore the possibility exists that a defendant could be found not-guilty in a criminal case but liable in a civil case.
Also note that the constitutional protections don’t apply to civil cases. If you can’t afford an attorney, the people aren’t going to pony up for a lawyer for you.
He said explain to me in English, not long and protracted verboseness.
Now I get that Seinfeld joke :smack:
I once saw a reenactment of the crime while showed that, when you standing behind a person and cut them up, the blood spurts forward. So OJ could have sliced and diced from behind and not gotten much blood on himself.
You misspelled “Thanks”.
Perhaps you could let us know which words you’re having trouble with?
If he did do it, it must have been because he loved her very much…
Which is pronounced, in this, case, “I’m an asshole.”
I believe he was alleged to have engaged in quite a fierce battle with Ron Goldman. Even if he had attacked Nicole from behind, I would think the attack on Goldman would have resulted in quite a bit of blood on the attacker.
I’m curious about the accomplice. I noticed at the time that the bloody footprints which led to the drive behind Nicole Simpson’s house pointed outward, whereas film of Simpson leaving the police station with Howard Weisman showed that his feet point straight ahead as he walks. I mentioned this at the time to a relative who suggested I call the 800 number that Shapiro had set up to collect tips and info but I never did. Still, it has always nagged at me as to whether or not Simpson was the one who actually made those footprints.
Denied. At least by one source.
One thing that I have never been able to understand is how OJ could be found liable (in Civil Court) that he was “innocent” of (as per criminal court)
I understand all the stuff about differing levels of proof, but that seems to be more in relation to corporate fraud (or to put it differently - “not guilty” of stock manipulation, but civilly liable for not taking due care as a director), or independent cases.
How could a civil court find against him for a murder he didn’t commit (as far as criminal court is concerned). This feels like a logical flaw. Wouldn’t / Shouldn’t it be an absolute defence to say “I am not guilty of murder, therefore I am not liable?”
Would it therefore be (theoretically) possible for a civil jury to find against me in the case of a traffic accident where the police found I was faultless?
The noun is “verbosity”, and “long and protracted verbosity” is a pleonasm.
Well, it’s because a criminal court does not determine that you didn’t commit the crime. They only determine if you did it. Nobody is found Innocent in a criminal case, only guilty or not guilty. Not guilty can mean that you didn’t do it, or it can mean that the state couldn’t prove that you did it.
And yes, even if the police didn’t ticket you in a traffic accident you can be sued in a civil case…it happens all the time.
Not exclusively, at least according to VERBOSE Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
At least one person recognized my use of irony.
I apologize to PunditLisa for my terse response, but FlyingDragonFan was asking for an explanation why O.J. could be found “guilty” in a civil trial after being found not guilty in a criminal trial for the same crime, not a mini-history of American jurisprudence. I believe I sufficiently adressed FlyingDragonFan’s concern in the post immediately before PunditLisa’s. And it’s not like we simul-posted our responses.
Me too! I feel like I’ve been waiting 10 years for somebody else to notice this and point it out.