So Long OJ

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Yeah I thought people are innocent until proven guilty. He was never found guilty in criminal court. Thus he is innocent...

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.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Lathum

but frankly you are an idiot if you dont think the jury wasn't somewhat infuenced by his first trial.

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.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

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.

Everyone knows OJ was guilty. Its just that he was rich. And rich people are supposed to be treated just like regular people.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Deattribution

If he was guilty for what he did this second time, how does it even matter?

If the end result was they had him on audiotape, with 5 or 6 guys testifying against him who were directly involved and something like 19 witnesses who had other information - again, if the information was so sure fire that doesn't matter who it was, he was going to be found guilty. There's nothing impartial about that.

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.

[Neon_Chaos]

I think OJ is a stupid man.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

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.

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").

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

They could have all the evidence in the world against him, the sixth amendment grants us the right to trial by impartial jury.

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.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

If the jury wasnt impartial then how exactly was it a valid jury?


this is all assuming one thinks the jury wasn't impartial...

[TargetPractice6]

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.

[DanGarion]

Couldn't an impartial juror be held in contempt of court?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If the jury wasnt impartial then how exactly was it a valid jury?

this is all assuming one thinks the jury wasn't impartial...

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Couldn't an impartial juror be held in contempt of court?

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.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by molson

Because they heard of OJ???

No because they already have preconceived notion that his is guilty.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

Alright cool.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

No because they already have preconceived notion that his is guilty.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Curious, molson, because I don't really know. Are you a prosecutor or defense lawyer?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Curious, molson, because I don't really know. Are you a prosecutor or defense lawyer?

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.

[Chief Rum]

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[EagleFan]

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.