Simpson was mentioned in another thread but I wanted to start a new thread rather than hijack that one.
Suppose Simpson decided that he was going to spend the rest of his life in prison anyway and he might as well go for notoriety. So he writes a book “Hell, Yes, I Got Away With Murder” and confesses to killing Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.
What would be his legal situation? He was tried and found not guilty. Would a confession be sufficient grounds to retry him? Would it be grounds for new civil suits?
He couldn’t be tried criminally again. Double jeopardy still holds even if the person admits it. He’s already been found civilly liable. I suppose somebody else might try to claim some kind of damages and sue him, but they wouldn’t recover anything. Not even the victims’ families ever actually recovered anything monetarily.
He did write that book but it was pulled and pulped before actually getting to stores because people were outraged by it. Nothing happened to him, so I guess he’s ok.
He can’t go to jail for killing them because he has already been found not guilty of killing them and it’s against our constitution for a person to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense.
You can’t retry him for murder, since he was acquitted. The Feds could try him for violation of Brown and Goldman’s civil rights, if they were so inclined.
He was found liable at the civil suit anyway, so I don’t think there would be much point in suing him again. Of course, Goldman’s family has been fighting him for years to get everything they can to satisfy the judgment. Most recently they acquired the rights to the book where OJ all but confesses to doing it.
“If I Did It” is pretty much the book you describe, but it’s a thinly veiled confession rather than an open one.
He can’t be tried again, even if he openly admitted it, unless someone could come up with some ancillary crime that he wasn’t charged with (IANAL).
Civil lawsuits do not require the same degree of proof (preponderance of the evidence) compared to criminal (beyond the shadow of a doubt), so there has always been enough of a basis for civil suits, such as the one Ron Goldman’s father won. A confession might make it a little easier to win such suits, but I think the only other party damage would be Nicole’s family and I think they made a decision not to sue, probably for other reasons than the likelihood of winning.
They’d find something else to try him on. Eventually you’d find something that the courts wouldn’t rule out as double jeopardy. He’s 63 so even a ten year sentence on top of what he’s serving could be a life sentence for him.
Now what they could try him on, I don’t know, as I said, most of it would fall under double jeopardy.
It would be interesting because it was such a high profile case what the reaction of public opinion would be? Would they amend the Constitution to permit retrial in case of confession? Probably not, but who knows what the reaction would be.
Not true. People think of the federal charges brought against the cops in the Rodney King case, but those charges only apply to people who have violated a person’s civil rights while under color or authority of the state – that is, only if you are acting in some capacity as an agent of the government (like cops). This is not an avenue which can be used against civilians.
No they couldn’t. The crime of violating someone’s civil rights isn’t a blanket do-over for double jeopardy purposes. It (to wit, 18 USC Sec. 242) specifically and only applies to people acting “under color of state law” (such as cops, judges, etc.) who use the authority given to them by the state to violate another’s rights. The murder of one (or in this case two) private citizens by another private citizen is not a federal crime. Sec. 242 would apply only if Simpson were acting as an agent of the state. (Interestingly, if Det. Furman really tampered with evidence as the defense claimed, a Sec. 242 prosecution might be made against him, in that he used his state authority to attempt to deprive Simpson of his life and liberty without due process.)
I’m a bit surprised at all the responses here. I thought that if major new evidence arises, a person can be tried again for a crime, even if they’ve previously been acquitted? Is that not the case? The Wikipedia link for that criminal term AK84 posted doesn’t settle anything at all, because it says,
Does that mean they can be tried again if the evidence is substantially different?
AK84 is a lawyer in Pakistan, and they may have different rules on this issue. As far as the US and O.J. Simpson are concerned, he can’t be tried again for the murders.
:dubious::rolleyes: