* After 1995 criminal court verdict, many people were made at Black people on jury. Note: there were White people on jury.
* After 1995 criminal court verdict, many people were mad at Black people because many Black people believed OJ, not guilty.
* Some people after 1995 criminal court verdict were mad at Simpson legal team. They couldn't articulate why. Basically no one had seen criminal law attorneys argue so well on behalf of a client.
*** WEAK CASES GO TO TRIAL. Even though no accused person has to plead guilty, attorneys will not argue on your behalf if there is nothing to argue. Weak cases either are thrown out of court by pre-trial or prosecution stops moving forward before pretrial or case is resolved by plea bargain. Most guilty convictions in U.S. are due to criminal defendant pleading guilty. L.A. prosecutors failed to offer Simpson a punish he could live with. Case should have never gone to trial. Case was too weak.
O.J. butchered 2 people including a person that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If it was someone else, the prosecution would have pursued the death penalty. The prosecution agreeing to some type of a plea deal would have been a slap in the face to the Goldmans and Browns. Take another look at the crime scene photos and see if you still think a plea deal was in order.
Except you're still missing "Before OJ Simpson murder case's" point, which is the reality of our justice system.
"Take another look at the crime scene photos and see if you still think a plea deal was in order" - irrelevant, the crime scene is only one of the factors to be considered. It's completely meaningless without solid proof to support the charges, and even moreso in a death penalty case.
Bottom line, in such cases the burden of proof standard for a juror must be "absolute", not just "beyond reasonable doubt", otherwise you're asking the jurors to play God. Think about it.
Examples of absolute proof cases include:
***Aurora theater shooting - perp caught re-arming in parking lot after having already gunned people down.
***Boulder grocery store shooting - perp gave up after engaging in a shootout with police and having already gunned people down.
In cases like these and many others there was never any question who did it. Other absolute factors could include confessions, eyewitnesses, video, murder weapons, DNA, and etc... depending. If you're going to sentence a person to death you better be 100% positive they were indeed the perpetrator. "Beyond reasonable doubt..." works fine for 10-15, 15-25, "life", etc... because if exculpatory evidence surfaces later at least... think about it.
No such proof was presented in the OJ case, but the prosecution chose to go all in rather than a plea deal. The result wasn't that surprising.
Jackie Chiles got him off and OJ is dead. "Who told you to put the balm on? I didn't tell you to put the balm on. Why'd you put the balm on? You haven't even been to see the doctor. If your gonna put a balm on, let a doctor put a balm on."
Everyone thinks that black belts can kick everyone's ass who isn't a black belt. Far from the truth and it's mainly taught for defensive purposes (minus a knife). 47 isn't old so you must be like 25 to say something like that. OJ was also an NFL athlete, they tend to be in pretty good shape even up to 60. OJ also was about 4 inches taller and outweighed Ron by a good 40-50 pounds. OJ also had the element of surprise and a very sharp knife. He was a knife collector, fascinated with them. As far as Nicole goes, what difference does running 9 miles vs a former NFL running back? I only saw pictures of Nicole battered and bruised before the murders, not OJ. Some people just want him to be innocent so bad that they lose all sense of logic and reason.
* After 1995 criminal court verdict, many people were made at Black people on jury. Note: there were White people on jury.
* After 1995 criminal court verdict, many people were mad at Black people because many Black people believed OJ, not guilty.
* Some people after 1995 criminal court verdict were mad at Simpson legal team. They couldn't articulate why. Basically no one had seen criminal law attorneys argue so well on behalf of a client.
*** WEAK CASES GO TO TRIAL. Even though no accused person has to plead guilty, attorneys will not argue on your behalf if there is nothing to argue. Weak cases either are thrown out of court by pre-trial or prosecution stops moving forward before pretrial or case is resolved by plea bargain. Most guilty convictions in U.S. are due to criminal defendant pleading guilty. L.A. prosecutors failed to offer Simpson a punish he could live with. Case should have never gone to trial. Case was too weak.
I'm mad at OJ because he killed two people after domestic abusing his wife/ex-wife over years (and new info about others coming out today). Not "allegedly".
I have no idea, and neither do you apparently, what you're talking about.men
Right there. That is why jury had to state, "Not guilty."
A lot has been made over the past 29 years, forensics. Our justice system in U.S. functions with the expectation 100% innocent men and women will have criminal charges dropped before pre-trial and guilty or mostly guilty men or women will take a plea deal over 90% of the time by pre-trial. High tech science is not meant to sway a jury, high tech science is to convince criminal defendants to plead guilty.
Most of you are missing it. It was a weak case. No credible eye witness made it to trial. One of the lead detectives was caught lying. Judge Ito should have thrown out Mark Furhman's entire testimony. The only way to convict OJ of murder was to believe L.A.P.D. were honest. I cannot understand why posters do not understand. In a murder case, it is not what you believe, it is what law enforcement can prove.
I'm mad at OJ because he killed two people after domestic abusing his wife/ex-wife over years (and new info about others coming out today). Not "allegedly".
I have no idea, and neither do you apparently, what you're talking about.men
Right there. That is why jury had to state, "Not guilty."
A lot has been made over the past 29 years, forensics. Our justice system in U.S. functions with the expectation 100% innocent men and women will have criminal charges dropped before pre-trial and guilty or mostly guilty men or women will take a plea deal over 90% of the time by pre-trial. High tech science is not meant to sway a jury, high tech science is to convince criminal defendants to plead guilty.
Most of you are missing it. It was a weak case. No credible eye witness made it to trial. One of the lead detectives was caught lying. Judge Ito should have thrown out Mark Furhman's entire testimony. The only way to convict OJ of murder was to believe L.A.P.D. were honest. I cannot understand why posters do not understand. In a murder case, it is not what you believe, it is what law enforcement can prove.
Thank you F Lee for pointing out something I've never disputed.