10-04-2008, 12:35 PM | #51 | |||
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
He's only innocent in the sense that the state isn't allowed to punish him for it. They're ONLY allowed to punish you if you're found guilty. But ya, he beat the shit out of his wife and then cut her head off. So no, he's not innocent. Not even "in the eyes of the law". Our criminal system isn't concerned with establishing anyone's innocence. Last edited by molson : 10-04-2008 at 12:37 PM. |
|||
10-04-2008, 12:44 PM | #52 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Satellite of Love
|
Quote:
A lot of people thought OJ was framed for the murders. Of course they were all influenced by his first trial, but unless the lawyers asked each one of them during jury selection what they thought of the first trial (which they might have, I haven't paid attention to this thing), you can't know which side of the fence each juror is on. It's possible 3 or 4 of the jurors thought he was set up by the LAPD 13 years ago, but still convicted him on these crimes. |
|
10-04-2008, 12:54 PM | #53 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
Quote:
Wow you were there, you saw it with your own eyes? I feel he was guilty too, but stay away from claiming what I believe are facts in a case that someone has been found innocent in criminal court. But that's just me. Plus I don't think she was his wife at the time. |
|
10-04-2008, 12:57 PM | #54 | |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Jun 2007
|
Quote:
Everyone knows OJ was guilty. Its just that he was rich. And rich people are supposed to be treated just like regular people. |
|
10-04-2008, 12:59 PM | #55 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
They could have all the evidence in the world against him, the sixth amendment grants us the right to trial by impartial jury. Do I think that any jury would have found him guilty based on the evidence, of course, but according to the constitution if the jury wasn't impartial he wasnt given a fair trial. |
|
10-04-2008, 01:02 PM | #56 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Parañaque, Philippines
|
I think OJ is a stupid man.
__________________
Come and see. |
10-04-2008, 01:02 PM | #57 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Juries are morons. They convict innocent people and acquit guilty people all the time. So no, I don't rely on them for my opinions on anything. (And in the case of OJ, technically I guess it's a strongly-held opinion, but there's as much evidence that he did than there is of many strongly held "facts"). |
|
10-04-2008, 01:03 PM | #58 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
This trial was valid under the 6th amendment. The 6th amendment doesn't require robots as jurors - that's impossible. Otherwise, you're implying that it was impossible to try him Constitutionally, and that "under the law", these charges should be dismissed. |
|
10-04-2008, 01:07 PM | #59 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
If the jury wasnt impartial then how exactly was it a valid jury? this is all assuming one thinks the jury wasn't impartial... Last edited by Lathum : 10-04-2008 at 01:09 PM. |
|
10-04-2008, 01:30 PM | #60 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lexington, KY
|
I really don't get what your point is Lathum. Whose fault is it that OJ can't get an impartial jury? And what do you propose to do to get a valid jury? Should any OJ trial be thrown out because it's impossible to get an impartial jury?
I agree that the jury members likely knew about and had an opinion of the previous case. But seeing that most everyone old enough to be a juror does, I don't see what the point is or what could be done about it. |
10-04-2008, 01:57 PM | #62 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
If you find me the caselaw that holds that a jury with a mere outside knowledge of a defendant's prior charge violates the sixth amendment, I'd love to read it. Last edited by molson : 10-04-2008 at 01:59 PM. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:00 PM | #63 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Because they heard of OJ??? No jury, ever, has been 100% impartial. It's up to the voir dire process to ensure the most impartial jury possible is chosen. The defense is of course a part of that process. I wonder if the the defense objected to the panel of jurors as a whole - the judge always asks that, though I'm never heard of a case where the defense actually did. If the defense didn't object, that defense is waived - there was nothing wrong with the panel, and from there, it's up to the defense to get the best jury they can. And if they did object - then, I guess they could make a wacky constitutional argument that OJ can't be constitutionally tried anywhere in the United States, by ANY jury. I don't think would fly though. Juries simply aren't required to have zero outside knowledge of the participants and even the facts of the case. That's simply impossible in much of small-town American anyway (even more so 200 years ago). If during voire dire, someone says, ya, I know the defendant, that isn't an immediate DQ. He can be questioned by both sides, who still have to show that the juror can't possibly be fair. Last edited by molson : 10-04-2008 at 02:07 PM. |
10-04-2008, 02:03 PM | #64 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
No because they already have preconceived notion that his is guilty. |
10-04-2008, 02:03 PM | #65 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwest
|
Quote:
Alright cool. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:09 PM | #66 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
If the defense could SHOW that, specifically, (and that the juror thus lied to the court in voir dire), then ya, now we're on to something (like if a tape surfaces of a juror saying, "ya, I was all about payback, I wasn't even paying attention at the trial). Simply having heard of the case isn't enough though. Last edited by molson : 10-04-2008 at 02:10 PM. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:11 PM | #67 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
Curious, molson, because I don't really know. Are you a prosecutor or defense lawyer?
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. |
10-04-2008, 02:15 PM | #68 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I was a prosecutor for about 2 years. (and thus do have a big-time bias in this area). I certainly didn't prosecute anyone unless I was sure as hell they were guilty, and 100% of the time it's obvious. The game is always getting as much as you can in front of a jury, because the trend is definitely towards exclusion of evidence. The big area where prosecution is losing is Domestic Violence. Last edited by molson : 10-04-2008 at 02:21 PM. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:19 PM | #69 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
|
I thought that might be the case, since you seemed to be talking with too much authority to be some goombah off the street.
I am not a lawyer, I admit, but I am a reasonably intelligent person, I believe, and almost this entire thread smacks of semantics, including your argument with Lathum.
__________________
. . I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready. |
10-04-2008, 02:23 PM | #70 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Definitely true. It always stings though when someone refers to a domestic batterer as being "cleared" of a crime because of the failings of our criminal justice team. Domestic Battery (and the murder that it often leads to) are pretty easy to get away with in America. |
|
10-04-2008, 02:26 PM | #71 | |
Favored Bitch #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: homeless in NJ
|
Quote:
my sister was beaten and verbaly abused by her now dead husband so I am the last person who will ever defend someone of battery. |
|
10-04-2008, 04:19 PM | #72 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA
|
Why are we having this discssion? The idiot got what he deserved in this case.
The jurors who found him guilty will never get a fair shake as it was 100% certain that if they found him guilty people would say that this was because of what happened 13 years ago. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|