It may sound strange, but both of the O.J. verdicts make sense
Article Abstract:
The acquittal of O.J. Simpson on murder charges but his subsequent conviction of wrongful death by a civil jury was not a retaliation for the perceived injustice of the criminal case. The two juries heard different evidence, the judges ran the cases differently, the plaintiffs in the civil case learned from the mistakes made in the criminal one and criminal and civil cases had different standards of proof. Juries in criminal cases have to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while those in civil cases only have to find guilt by a preponderance of the evidence.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Both sides helped to raise doubts
Article Abstract:
The O.J. Simpson legal defense team never assembled a coherent and consistent approach, but its tactics proved highly effective nonetheless. Throughout its portion of the case the prosecution was on the defensive, needlessly raising the defense's allegations in an effort to disprove them. The defense then ignored its earlier allegations, focusing on errors brought out in the course of the prosecution. The defense was able to rely on the jurors' desire to acquit and to plant sufficient seeds of reasonable doubt.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: RICO and conspiracy construction: the mischief of the economic model. Client perjury: an ever present, multidimensional problem
- Abstracts: Market conduct issues and the transformation of the U.S. life insurance business. Life insurance illustrations: the problem or the solution?
- Abstracts: 'Castano' to 5th Circuit: a gamble? Judge in tobacco class case allows interlocutory appeal. 5th Circuit next for tobacco suit