PDA

View Full Version : OJ Gets 15 years.



asdf2231
12-05-2008, 01:37 PM
O.J. Simpson apologizes to judge at sentencing

Dec 5 02:07 PM US/Eastern
By KEN RITTER

LAS VEGAS (AP—O.J. Simpson has apologized to the judge at his sentencing hearing and says he didn't mean to steal from anybody when he tried to retrieve memorabilia.
Simpson made his statement before sentencing Friday in his armed robber case in a soft voice that was somewhat hoarse.

He appeared ready to break down in tears as he told Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass that he was "sorry and confused" before going into a rambling and emotional 5-minute declaration.

"I didn't want to steal anything from anyone ... I'm sorry, sorry," he said.

Judge Glass ruled before sentencing that Simpson cannot be freed on bail pending possible appeal.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94SMTR00&show_article=1
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

d_va
12-05-2008, 01:41 PM
I watched it live and OJ is still a bad actor!

Loved Judge Glass.

Who's that protesting outside the court house (shouting over the Goldmans' statements)? Obama won, there is no racism in American anymore:p

Shannon
12-05-2008, 01:42 PM
HA! That murdering piece of shit should have received the death penalty 13 years ago.

BadCat
12-05-2008, 01:45 PM
So much for his acting career.

ralph wiggum
12-05-2008, 01:57 PM
So much for his acting career.

Or finding the real killer.

marinejcksn
12-05-2008, 02:09 PM
I'm glad to hear the system works. Hopefully he'll pay his full 15 year debt to society, ask forgiveness and change his ways.

Speedy
12-05-2008, 02:29 PM
The sentences he recieved are concurrent. He can be paroled after the minimum on the first charge, then he has to serve the minimum on the second charge be paroled on that then start serving on the third charge. He is pretty much toast.

lacarnut
12-05-2008, 02:37 PM
I would not loose any sleep if another inmate uses a shank to carve him up a little bit. He could beat the 15 year rap with an Obomanation pardon. Money talks.

PoliCon
12-05-2008, 02:43 PM
13 is better than nothing. I'll wager that he will be spending those 13 years at some minimum security country club though . . ..

ralph wiggum
12-05-2008, 02:49 PM
I would not loose any sleep if another inmate uses a shank to carve him up a little bit. He could beat the 15 year rap with an Obomanation pardon. Money talks.

An Obama pardon would be downright hilarious.

lacarnut
12-05-2008, 03:18 PM
An Obama pardon would be downright hilarious.

Brothers have to stick together.:rolleyes::eek::)

Space Gravy
12-05-2008, 03:24 PM
This article says the minimum is 9 years.

Link (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8896800/O.J.-gets-up-to-33-years,-must-serve-at-least-9)

noonwitch
12-05-2008, 03:30 PM
13 is better than nothing. I'll wager that he will be spending those 13 years at some minimum security country club though . . ..



Does Nevada have such a prison? Most states don't, the federal system has a couple of "country clubs". 13years is a long enough sentence to kick it out of minimum security, because armed robbery is considered a violent crime.

Country club prisons are generally reserved for white collar criminals.

PoliCon
12-05-2008, 03:37 PM
Country club prisons are generally reserved for white collar criminals.Or movie stars

lurkalot
12-05-2008, 03:47 PM
Guess who's new apartment I can see from my kitchen window? :D

Speedy
12-05-2008, 04:13 PM
Does Nevada have such a prison? Most states don't, the federal system has a couple of "country clubs". 13years is a long enough sentence to kick it out of minimum security, because armed robbery is considered a violent crime.

Country club prisons are generally reserved for white collar criminals.

The Federal System has a quite a few "country club" prisons. Almost everywhere there is a big maximum security prison, there is a Federal Prison Camp right next to it. I think that except in certain circumstances, the people in those camps have to have a 60 month sentence or less to get sent straight there. I know guys who were "behind the fence" as it is called in the higher security prisons were placed there once they 60 months or less to serve if they had not been written up or in trouble. But there had to be no violence connected with your crime. I think that kidnapping, armed or not, is considered a violent crime and I do not think that OJ would be eligible to serve in a camp. I was serving a life without parole sentence and was never, ever going to see a camp except through the chain link fences and razor wire.

There is a Federal Prison Camp attatched to a military base in Nevada though.

lurkalot
12-05-2008, 04:24 PM
Dubbed “Most Hated Man in America” by the US media after his double murder trial in 1995, Simpson will serve his time in Nevada’s Ely State Prison, where he will be a marked man for race-hate gangs.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/71437/OJ-Simpson-blocking-out-reality-of-life-in-jail

his view:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j115/lurksalot/garnet001.jpg

Teetop
12-05-2008, 05:54 PM
I bet he will find Nicole's killer in prison. :rolleyes:

If he looks in the mirror, that is....

FlaGator
12-05-2008, 06:57 PM
I guess this isn't the best place to announce my starting of the Free OJ movement... I live in Florida and no OJ would just ruin our economy and allow liberal California to take over the industry. I am deeply saddened by thiis turn of events. Next thing you know they will take away our rights to same-sex marriages.

PoliCon
12-06-2008, 12:17 AM
Interesting tid bit - OJ is 61.

Sonnabend
12-06-2008, 09:48 AM
Last night a source close to the Goldman fam*ily, which won a share of a record £26million damages award in 1997 when a civil jury found Simpson liable for the unlawful killings of Nicole and Ron Goldman, said: “If he’s play-acting in the hope of landing a cushy prison placement, the family will make every effort to thwart him.”I'd suggest, Mr Goldman, that you back off. What prison he is in and what his conditions are, are none of your business.

I still say this civil jury business is a violation of double jeopardy. Found not guilty in a criminal court then another court, which doesn't rely on evidence says "we say you are so you pay all this money"

Why don't you just dispense with the criminal trials completely, seeing as you don't have any intention of abiding by its decisions.

Beats me why you bother, since this civil jury shit just means that you a/ try a man for the same crime twice / b ignore the jury trial and the verdict and the evidence because, yeah, forget justice, forget the law..so who cares if a criminal trial cleared him...lets have a civil trial and take all his money and make his life hell.

"Who cares what a jury says, we know he's guilty anyway"

We don't have that here, thank God, when a criminal trial is ended and a man is acquitted, that's it, end of discussion.

As it should be.

The law is imperfect, it makes mistakes, sometimes it frees a guilty man..and in the past the law has convicted an innocent man as well.

To my mind this civil trial business is a perversion of justice, and a denial of a man's basic right to natural justice.

If Goldman was after a verdict that the first jury didnt give, fine..I can understand that. When it came down to how much money Goldman wasnt getting and that's what he was always bitching about..I asked a question aloud no one has asked him.

"Is this about your son and Nicole Brown..is this about justice..or is this about the money?

OJ is in jail now, and he will have enough to worry about, and cope with, without some fucking harpy on his back.

I am going to ask a question, and I'd like it to be given serious thought.

What if he didnt do it? What if all along he was innocent, and in the end a lot of people realise they hounded an innocent man for years for a crime he never committed?

zBoots
12-06-2008, 10:11 AM
a little justice finally served; delayed, but served. Bye bye OJ.

RobJohnson
12-06-2008, 04:00 PM
Or finding the real killer.

LOL!!! :D

Zeus
12-06-2008, 04:09 PM
The sentences he recieved are concurrent. He can be paroled after the minimum on the first charge, then he has to serve the minimum on the second charge be paroled on that then start serving on the third charge. He is pretty much toast.

You got that back wards. Concurrent means all sentences time elapses together, Consecutive the sentences are served back to back.

For example, let’s say that John is on trial for assault, robbery and possession of controlled substances. He is convicted for all three, and during the sentencing hearing, he is given three years incarceration for assault, four years for robbery and one year for possession of controlled substances.

If the judge were to decide that John should serve his sentences concurrently, he would serve each of his penalties at the same time. Since the largest penalty was for robbery, he would serve a total of four years in prison.

However, if the judge were to give consecutive sentences, John would serve a total of eight years in prison: three for assault, four for robbery and one for possession.

Zeus
12-06-2008, 04:22 PM
I got a hunch OJ's conviction will be overturned on appeal. If not at least he will get the sentence dropped and have to be resentenced.

RobJohnson
12-06-2008, 04:23 PM
I doubt OJ had a fair trial.

Zeus
12-06-2008, 04:29 PM
I doubt OJ had a fair trial.

I wonder that myself. The judge went out of her way to say "This has nothing to do with your murder trial" and then there is the the other defendants all getting plea deals to testify against OJ. Kind of like justice was subservient to getting OJ.

Like I said the conviction gets overturned on appeal(on a techicality or not still overturned) or in the least the sentence is overturned because of the confusing structuring.

zBoots
12-06-2008, 10:41 PM
I doubt OJ had a fair trial.

A helluva lot fairer than the trial he gave Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman before slaughtering them.

zBoots
12-06-2008, 10:51 PM
I'd suggest, Mr Goldman, that you back off. What prison he is in and what his conditions are, are none of your business.

I still say this civil jury business is a violation of double jeopardy. Found not guilty in a criminal court then another court, which doesn't rely on evidence says "we say you are so you pay all this money"

Why don't you just dispense with the criminal trials completely, seeing as you don't have any intention of abiding by its decisions.

Beats me why you bother, since this civil jury shit just means that you a/ try a man for the same crime twice / b ignore the jury trial and the verdict and the evidence because, yeah, forget justice, forget the law..so who cares if a criminal trial cleared him...lets have a civil trial and take all his money and make his life hell.

"Who cares what a jury says, we know he's guilty anyway"

We don't have that here, thank God, when a criminal trial is ended and a man is acquitted, that's it, end of discussion.

As it should be.

The law is imperfect, it makes mistakes, sometimes it frees a guilty man..and in the past the law has convicted an innocent man as well.

To my mind this civil trial business is a perversion of justice, and a denial of a man's basic right to natural justice.

If Goldman was after a verdict that the first jury didnt give, fine..I can understand that. When it came down to how much money Goldman wasnt getting and that's what he was always bitching about..I asked a question aloud no one has asked him.

"Is this about your son and Nicole Brown..is this about justice..or is this about the money?

OJ is in jail now, and he will have enough to worry about, and cope with, without some fucking harpy on his back.

I am going to ask a question, and I'd like it to be given serious thought.

What if he didnt do it? What if all along he was innocent, and in the end a lot of people realise they hounded an innocent man for years for a crime he never committed?

You are obviously an ignorant individual who never read any book examining the mountainous evidence against OJ Simpson; the racist jury that acquitted him for racist reasons did a disservice to everyone. Pursuant to our laws, he rightfully and disgustingly went free despite a racist verdict. Obviously, you sat there like some drooler falling for the wookie defense. You dont have to fall for it, but you purposely chose too. Calling Mr Goldman a harpy is beyond the pale, considering OJ slaughtered his son and subsequently did all he could to avoid a legal judgment against him. OJ Simpon is a murdering piece of garbage. I hope he dies a lonely death in a cold dank cell.

AmPat
12-07-2008, 12:22 AM
I still say this civil jury business is a violation of double jeopardy. Found not guilty in a criminal court then another court, which doesn't rely on evidence says "we say you are so you pay all this money"Why don't you just dispense with the criminal trials completely, seeing as you don't have any intention of abiding by its decisions.

Beats me why you bother, since this civil jury shit just means that you a/ try a man for the same crime twice / b ignore the jury trial and the verdict and the evidence because, yeah, forget justice, forget the law..so who cares if a criminal trial cleared him...lets have a civil trial and take all his money and make his life hell.

No. The rules of evidence are more relaxed in the civil trial. Sorry Alex, It is NOT "Double Jeapardy." One might say more "LIBERAL." Given that, the Liberals must be ecstatic that civil courts exist.

Zeus
12-07-2008, 01:04 AM
No. The rules of evidence are more relaxed in the civil trial. Sorry Alex, It is NOT "Double Jeapardy." One might say more "LIBERAL." Given that, the Liberals must be ecstatic that civil courts exist.

Standards of proof are a lot less stringent in civil trials than criminal. What was unusual about the OJ civil trial is it's was basically unheard of a successful civil litigation after the defendant has been cleared in a criminal proceeding.

Whether a person agreed with the criminal verdict or not the civil trial verdict was a travesty of justice. Opened the flood gates to a whole new precedent for transfer of wealth via tort lotto.

Sonnabend
12-07-2008, 05:30 AM
You are obviously an ignorant individual who never read any book examining the mountainous evidence against OJ Simpson; the racist jury that acquitted him for racist reasons did a disservice to everyoneThe law is flawed, it sometimes does not work the way it should. Your law has also on several dozen occasions put innocent men on death row.

As for "ignorant"...pot, kettle, over.


Pursuant to our laws, he rightfully and disgustingly went free despite a racist verdict. Obviously, you sat there like some drooler falling for the wookie defense. I entertain what is called a reasonable doubt. Sorry you don't like it.


You dont have to fall for it, but you purposely chose too. Calling Mr Goldman a harpy is beyond the pale, considering OJ slaughtered his son and subsequently did all he could to avoid a legal judgment against him. OJ Simpon is a murdering piece of garbage. I hope he dies a lonely death in a cold dank cell.He was found guilty of this recent crime, not the other one. Hence he is, as all are, entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and as I seem to recall, the basis of law in both our nations is innocent until proven guilty.


Standards of proof are a lot less stringent in civil trials than criminal. You are trying a man again for the same crime. Double jeopardy.


What was unusual about the OJ civil trial is it's was basically unheard of a successful civil litigation after the defendant has been cleared in a criminal proceeding.Because, as can be seen by ZBoots, the "he's guilty anyway" mentality prevailed. In my opinion, the civil trial was tainted by the publicity and he did not get a fair and impartial trial.


Whether a person agreed with the criminal verdict or not the civil trial verdict was a travesty of justice.Yes, it was. We dont have those here, thats what a Court of Appeals is for. Yet when all is said and done, at the end of the day, agree or not acquitted means acquitted and not "acquitted but haul him off to a civil jury and lets get his money"

Civil trials may not be double jeopardy by the letter of the law....but they are, nonetheless.

zBoots
12-07-2008, 10:20 AM
He was found guilty of this recent crime, not the other one. Hence he is, as all are, entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and as I seem to recall, the basis of law in both our nations is innocent until proven guilty.


That does not prevent you from actually reading and coming to your own conclusion. Nothing about "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" prevents you as an individual from formulating an intelligent opinion about the crime. In my opinion, no person of any level of intelligence could look at that evidence and come to any conclusion other than knowing he slaughtered two people, walked away from it, then flaunted himself in front of the victims parents for several years. Luckily, his type of personality caused him to go on a rampage again, but this time, he was not so lucky. He did not get a racist So Cal Jury, and he did not walk. The verdict should be applauded by thinking persons.

But you even go farther, you not only stick your head in the sand, but have the audacity to call the father of the victim a harpy.

I hope you are simply ignorant of the facts of the case, at least then you have an excuse.

zBoots
12-07-2008, 10:30 AM
Standards of proof are a lot less stringent in civil trials than criminal. What was unusual about the OJ civil trial is it's was basically unheard of a successful civil litigation after the defendant has been cleared in a criminal proceeding.

Whether a person agreed with the criminal verdict or not the civil trial verdict was a travesty of justice. Opened the flood gates to a whole new precedent for transfer of wealth via tort lotto.

OJ's case didnt open the flood gates to anything.

Zeus
12-07-2008, 01:07 PM
OJ's case didnt open the flood gates to anything.

The civil court case sure the hell did. established new precedent. No longer does one have to be guilty of anything to be held civilly liable for the accusation..

Phillygirl
12-07-2008, 01:11 PM
The civil court case sure the hell did. established new precedent. No longer does one have to be guilty of anything to be held civilly liable for the accusation..

There was no change in the law. The civil standard has always been lower than the criminal standard.

Zeus
12-07-2008, 01:16 PM
There was no change in the law. The civil standard has always been lower than the criminal standard.

No change in the law. A definate change in the lowering of the bar concerning the law though. You have access to records I submit you would be hard pressed to find another civil case adjudicated against a defendent that was previously cleared in a criminal case.

zBoots
12-07-2008, 01:33 PM
The civil court case sure the hell did. established new precedent. No longer does one have to be guilty of anything to be held civilly liable for the accusation..

It has never been a prerequisite of civil liability to be criminally guilty. The two are completely separate.

zBoots
12-07-2008, 01:34 PM
No change in the law. A definate change in the lowering of the bar concerning the law though. You have access to records I submit you would be hard pressed to find another civil case adjudicated against a defendent that was previously cleared in a criminal case.

It seems to me there is a dichotomy in claiming flood gates in one post and in another post claiming its only happened once.

Zeus
12-07-2008, 02:41 PM
It seems to me there is a dichotomy in claiming flood gates in one post and in another post claiming its only happened once.

Say what ? you are the one claiming nothing changed and then Oh it only has happened once. Which establishes a precedent, nothing changed or something changed.

zBoots
12-07-2008, 03:23 PM
Say what ? you are the one claiming nothing changed and then Oh it only has happened once. Which establishes a precedent, nothing changed or something changed.

I never claimed it happened once. I would never claim that. Nothing in law ever happens "only once". I claimed it did not open the flood gates, and it obviously didnt. I claimed that criminal guilt is not a prerequisite to civil liability, and that is also equally and obviously true. What precedent was set by OJ?

Sonnabend
12-07-2008, 04:23 PM
That does not prevent you from actually reading and coming to your own conclusion.

Which I did. I entertain a reasonable doubt.


Nothing about "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" prevents you as an individual from formulating an intelligent opinion about the crime.

When a jury says he is not guilty, he is not, and therefore entitled to be treated as innocent according to our law...and yours.


In my opinion, no person of any level of intelligence could look at that evidence and come to any conclusion other than knowing he slaughtered two people, walked away from it, then flaunted himself in front of the victims parents for several years.

You like to throw this around a lot dont you? People who disagree with you are "ignorant" or "not intelligent"

That you dont like it means that you dont like it. Either way, tough luck.


Luckily, his type of personality caused him to go on a rampage again, but this time, he was not so lucky. He did not get a racist So Cal Jury, and he did not walk. The verdict should be applauded by thinking persons.

Race card again?


But you even go farther, you not only stick your head in the sand, but have the audacity to call the father of the victim a harpy.

Yep. When all I hear about is the fact he is bitching about the money, and he says little about his son, then the moniker fits. Every statement I have seen is him bitching about how little money he is getting....seems pretty clear cut to me.


I hope you are simply ignorant of the facts of the case, at least then you have an excuse

I know all about the case and have read about it in great detail. I have what is called reasonable doubt. And we dont have civil trials either.

Sonnabend
12-07-2008, 04:28 PM
I claimed it did not open the flood gates, and it obviously didnt. It set a legal precedent that can, and in all likelihood will, be used in future.


I claimed that criminal guilt is not a prerequisite to civil liability, and that is also equally and obviously true. So you support trying a man for the same crime twice..and if a criminal jury clears him, hell, ignore the evidence and the verdict and the fact the man has already been through hell, sure, you Yanks haul him before another court that has "a different level of proof".


What precedent was set by OJThat a man cleared by a criminal jury can be subjected to a perversion of the law and double jeopardy, and then slapped with a million dollar judgement for a crime a previous jury said he did not commit.

Res ipsa loquitur.

zBoots
12-07-2008, 04:31 PM
I know all about the case and have read about it in great detail. I have what is called reasonable doubt. And we dont have civil trials either.

As I do not entertain the obsession with Australian matters that you do for US matters, I was surprised to hear that you do not have civil trials. I couldnt name a single Austrialian criminal or civil trial matter, if only because I couldnt care less.

But then I thought, our law is based on English law, rooted in English Common Law, and as your country only recently entertained its independence from the crown, I was surprised you would say that, so I yahoo'd your statement
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=australian+civil+trial&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

It seems to me you know as much about your own law as you do the OJ case.

zBoots
12-07-2008, 04:47 PM
It set a legal precedent that can, and in all likelihood will, be used in future.
Which precedent are even you claiming it set?


So you support trying a man for the same crime twice..and if a criminal jury clears him, hell, ignore the evidence and the verdict and the fact the man has already been through hell, sure, you Yanks haul him before another court that has "a different level of proof".

Actually you're, as usual, more than a little jumbled up. A criminal matter is brought by the government,usually the state, but could be federally. A civil matter is brought by the individual person as a tort. Two different "draggings" of poor OJ.

What you are actually arguing is not double jeapordy at all, it would be more a long the lines of a law barring a tort in a case where criminally they were found not guilty.

That law does not exist.






That a man cleared by a criminal jury can be subjected to a perversion of the law and double jeopardy, and then slapped with a million dollar judgement for a crime a previous jury said he did not commit.

Res ipsa loquitur.
Once again, you are ignorant of reality. Allow me to assist you in gaining an understanding of the United States Constitution.

Lets say you were an American living in the US and and I broke into your hotel room and stole your stuff.

I did not violate your 4th Amendment right against search and seizure. Why? I am not the government or acting on behalf of the government. Now If I was a cop and I broke in on behalf of the government, took your stuff to make a case against you, that would be a fruit of the poisonous tree and a violation of your 4th amendment rights.

I know this is complicated, but are you with me so far Aussie?

Lets say I punched you in your face and told you to shut the hell up with all your stupidity. That would not violate your 1st amendment rights.

But if you lived here and we passed a law that said "ignorant aussies are not allowed to express their idiotic opinions"..

Well that would violate your first amendment right.

Still with me aussie?


Similarly, a civil law suit brought by the Goldman's vs OJ does not violate OJ's 5th amendment protection against double jeopardy.

Indeed nothing in law prevents any person from bringing a civil action against some other person and in fact that right is provisioned for in the 7th Amendment by guaranteeing a right of jury trial in common law matters exceeding $20.

The two are not intertwined, they are completely separate.


I can only hope you were able to follow my post more than you could your own civil laws or the OJ trial, but I tried to keep it as simple as possible for you.

Sonnabend
12-07-2008, 05:17 PM
But then I thought, our law is based on English law, rooted in English Common Law, and as your country only recently entertained its independence from the crown, I was surprised you would say that, so I yahoo'd your statement

A civil trial in this context refers to a civil matter and has zero, nada, nothing to do with criminal matters.

The two are separate, and one refers to civil matters such as torts, defamation etc.

Criminal matters are separate, and once cleared, double jeopardy applies.

A person cleared by a jury is NOT subject to a civil action here.


Actually you're, as usual, more than a little jumbled up. A criminal matter is brought by the government,usually the state, but could be federally. A civil matter is brought by the individual person as a tort. Two different "draggings" of poor OJ.

For the same crime.:rolleyes:

zBoots
12-07-2008, 05:20 PM
A civil trial in this context refers to a civil matter and has zero, nada, nothing to do with criminal matters.

The two are separate, and one refers to civil matters such as torts, defamation etc.

Criminal matters are separate, and once cleared, double jeopardy applies.

A person cleared by a jury is NOT subject to a civil action here.



How do you know that? Any support of that? I'm not saying its not true, I would just like to see it. You have a propensity for misunderstanding law and the way things work; you didnt even know you have civil trials at all so I'm afraid I would like to verify that.

Sonnabend
12-08-2008, 06:10 AM
How do you know that? Any support of that? I'm not saying its not true, I would just like to see it.

www.austlii.edu.au


You have a propensity for misunderstanding law and the way things work; you didnt even know you have civil trials at all so I'm afraid I would like to verify that.

I knew we had civil trials, I said we don't have civil trials as a GOTCHA after a criminal trial. Once they are acquitted, that's it, end of discussion.

Read my comments again. Incidentally,I work in law, but not in criminal law. If you want details on criminal law in Australia, I suggest you contact the Aust. Law Society.

zBoots
12-08-2008, 09:00 AM
www.austlii.edu.au



I knew we had civil trials, I said we don't have civil trials as a GOTCHA after a criminal trial. Once they are acquitted, that's it, end of discussion. .

No, you didnt say that at all, but I'll accept that you originally mistyped. You wrote (and this is a copy/paste - undeniable to most people, but you are special): "I know all about the case and have read about it in great detail. I have what is called reasonable doubt. And we dont have civil trials either."

But your propensity for being perpetually incorrect prevents you from accepting you made a simple error. You like to compound your ignorance.




Read my comments again. Incidentally,I work in law, but not in criminal law.
If you want details on criminal law in Australia, I suggest you contact the Aust. Law Society.

You apparently have no support for yet another position you have taken. If you can find a law in Australia that bars someone from filing a civil suit against someone acquitted in criminal court, you let me know. If I said there was a law for something, I would simply paste for you the link and it would be a done deal. But then again, you are special.

AmPat
12-08-2008, 08:57 PM
The law is flawed, .................snip............................. ...............You are trying a man again for the same crime. Double jeopardy.Maybe. The evidence presented was excluded at the criminal trial due to laws protecting the guilty, oops, defendant. Those same pieces of evidence were allowed in the civil trial. That evidence was not generated exclusively for the trial IT EXISTED during the criminal trial. OJ was most certainly guilty and got off on technicalities and red herring defense of RACISM. HE WAS AND STILL IS GUILTY. If WHITE America would stop crapping themselves over that stupid WHITE GUILT, he would have been found GUILTY AS CHARGED in the criminal trial as well.


Because, as can be seen by ZBoots, the "he's guilty anyway" mentality prevailed. In my opinion, the civil trial was tainted by the publicity and he did not get a fair and impartial trial. You are correct. He was ACQUITED! That there proves he did not get a fair trial. HE WAS ACQUITED even though he murdered two people. Whit Guilt acquited him. Liberal court proceedings allowed for this travesty of justice.

Civil trials may not be double jeopardy by the letter of the law....but they are, nonetheless.
I see your point, I just disagree. If the rules of evidence were identical, I would agree. Since new evidence is allowed that changes the FACTS of the case, civil courts have the potential to soften the blow to families like the Goldmans.

RobJohnson
12-09-2008, 02:03 AM
He should of taken the plea....



FOX News LAS VEGAS – O.J. Simpson is headed to prison for at least nine years, but a prosecutor says the former football star could have spent less time behind bars if he had accepted a plea deal before he was convicted.

Clark County District Attorney David Roger said Simpson was offered a deal for less prison time than the nine- to 33-year prison terms the graying former football star was sentenced to on Friday for kidnapping and assaulting two sports memorabilia dealers with a deadly weapon.

"Mr. Simpson wanted something just short of a public apology," Roger said. "We didn't think that was appropriate."


OJ (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081206/ap_on_re_us/oj_simpson_67)

Sonnabend
12-09-2008, 05:44 AM
But your propensity for being perpetually incorrect prevents you from accepting you made a simple error. You like to compound your ignorance.

Only error I made was talking to you.:rolleyes:


You apparently have no support for yet another position you have taken. If you can find a law in Australia that bars someone from filing a civil suit against someone acquitted in criminal court, you let me know

Do your own homework. I'll say it again. I am not in criminal law. Go ask the Law Society.


If I said there was a law for something, I would simply paste for you the link and it would be a done deal. But then again, you are special.

Suit yourself.


If the rules of evidence were identical, I would agree. Since new evidence is allowed that changes the FACTS of the case, civil courts have the potential to soften the blow to families like the Goldmans.

Far as I am concerned, it is double jeopardy because regardless of the "level of proof required" you are still putting a man on trial for the same crime twice

I'm curious....what do you do if the civil trial acquits. Find a new jury?Try him until you get the verdict you like?

Perversion of justice doesnt begin to describe this.

AmPat
12-09-2008, 08:24 AM
Only error I made was talking to you.:rolleyes:



Do your own homework. I'll say it again. I am not in criminal law. Go ask the Law Society.



Suit yourself.



Far as I am concerned, it is double jeopardy because regardless of the "level of proof required" you are still putting a man on trial for the same crime twice

I'm curious....what do you do if the civil trial acquits. Find a new jury?Try him until you get the verdict you like?

Perversion of justice doesnt begin to describe this.
There is always an end to any game. If you go to court and lose, that's it. Case closed. I said the rules of evidence were relaxed, not that there was a different "level of proof".

The charge was different in the civil trial but I don't remember. I believe it was wrongful death. In that trial, the excluded evidence from the criminal trial was allowed. The jury was allowed to see the proof that showed BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT that OJ is a double murderer. He was found guilty of their wrongful deaths and ordered to pay. I will say it again, It Is Not Double Jeapardy.

zBoots
12-09-2008, 08:46 AM
The charge was different in the civil trial but I don't remember. I believe it was wrongful death. In that trial, the excluded evidence from the criminal trial was allowed. The jury was allowed to see the proof that showed BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT that OJ is a double murderer. He was found guilty of their wrongful deaths and ordered to pay. I will say it again, It Is Not Double Jeapardy.

Just as a point of order, he was not found guilty at the Civil Trial. He was found liable for the two murders he committed.

zBoots
12-09-2008, 08:53 AM
Far as I am concerned, it is double jeopardy because regardless of the "level of proof required" you are still putting a man on trial for the same crime twice

I'm curious....what do you do if the civil trial acquits. Find a new jury?Try him until you get the verdict you like?

Perversion of justice doesnt begin to describe this.

You say you work in Civil Law then you write "you are still putting a man on trial for the same crime twice" and "what do you do if a civil jury acquits?" and you are unable to support your contention that this couldnt happen is aussie land.

Your entire premise is completely inaccurate.

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Sonna, I tried to explain to you who brought the civil trial, it wasnt "you". Furthermore, Civil juries cannot acquit.

What area of civil law do you work in? It is certainly no where where any knowledge of the law is required.

zBoots
12-09-2008, 09:03 AM
Hey sonna, while you are snivliling abour poor OJ, I googled up your double jeapordy laws. I gotta admit, I stupidly was taking your posts at face value. I mean, you live there, I figured you must know your own laws.

Interestingly, you guys passed exceptions to double jeopardy, following your queen bee's new law: Criminal Justice Act 2003[9], which did the same thing in UK and Wales. CRIMINAL LAW. So not only could this happen in Australia, but if criteria were met, he could be tried criminally again as well.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22606728-17044,00.html

LOLOL

Dude, you are about as clueless as they come. You really need to read some australian news and stop your obsession with the US.


Arent you embarrassed by how little you truly know about your own land while commenting about poor OJ and how it could "never happen there"?

Sonnabend
12-09-2008, 09:15 AM
Have you ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"?


The charge was different in the civil trial but I don't remember. I believe it was wrongful death

So you reworded the charge to suit your ends, but the crime was the same. That's like calling your ass a rectum

Same thing, different name.


In that trial, the excluded evidence from the criminal trial was allowed.

So you throw out the evidentiary rules as well...forget that the evidence was excluded the first time because it was tainted, or prejudiced, or suspect, or that the chain of evidence had been broken.

If it is inadmissable in a court of law, what makes it okay to use now?? So, hypothetically, a confession excluded in a criminal trial because it was gained because the persons Miranda rights were violated is admssable in a civl trial?

Wow...thats some court. Maybe you should hang a sign "abandon all hope of justice, all ye who enter here...we dont care about the facts, we just want your money. So what of they found you innocent, we'll fix THAT...."


The jury was allowed to see the proof that showed BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT that OJ is a double murderer.

What proof? It was all circumstantial. No eyewitnesses, no murder weapon, no fingterprints and no DNA at the scene. Even today they cant find any.

If it could not be admitted in a real court of law, then it is not evidence of anything.If it was valid evidence and was 100% legitimate then it would be admissable. The fact it was not means the evidence was not clear cut , and therefore suspect.

Please explain to me how you can possibly justify using "proof" that is inadmissable in a real court of law.

Illegally obtained evidence is admissable? Illegal search and seizure? Hearsay?


He was found guilty of their wrongful deaths and ordered to pay. I will say it again, It Is Not Double Jeapardy.

The very same charges that he had already been cleared of. The very same crime.

The charges had been reworded, and evidence that was thrown out of a criminal court is now "admissable".

He was put on trial for the same crime over the deaths of the same two people..a crime he had already been cleared of.

Wrongful death = murder = 2 trials = Double jeopardy.

Incidentally, you didnt answer my question.What if the civil trial said he was clear. Try him again..and again..and again...and again..???

Admit it...this "civil trial" business is revenge and greed and nothing else. He was tried by twelve and found not guilty.

So why bother with a criminal trial at all, since all you'll do afterwards is haul him into another court because youre not happy with the verdict, using "facts" and
"evidence" that was already ruled inadmissable...and for what?

FOR MONEY.

Not to file new charges, no0t to investigate the case further and see if there is the chance he could have been tried on charges related to the case...no, this was about OJ's money and little else.

Thats all Goldman has talked about for years, not his son, not to have further investigations done..no, all he ever talked about was how little money he was getting.

I have two questions for you.

1. What if Nicole wasnt the target, but he was...and he hasd crossed some druglord? He was into drugs in a big way.

Look at this

Hm. (http://walraven.org/simpson/pm_09.html)


For all of the foregoing reasons, Goldman requests an order prohibiting Simpson from presenting evidence or argument that Faye Resnick used drugs or that the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were in any way related to Faye Resnick.

The police never followed this up, and there was never any investigation into this.

Maybe its nothing...but then again, when a mans life is at stake in a murder trial, every avenue should be explored.


Simpson obviously has no evidence that Ms. Resnick or her "world" had anything whatsoever to do with these murders. He should not be permitted to confuse the issues and mislead the jury by presenting arguments to the jury unsupported by substantial evidence and based on pure speculation.

He was absolutely right. OJ didnt have any evidence. Gathering evidence is the police's job. They didnt bother.

Why?

Do I have proof? No...a possible alternative possibility into the persons behind their deaths was never examined in any detail. Why?

Do I know for certain? No...I dont know. I probably never will.

Do I have a reasonable doubt? Yes.

Sonnabend
12-09-2008, 09:31 AM
You say you work in Civil Law then you write "you are still putting a man on trial for the same crime twice" and "what do you do if a civil jury acquits?" and you are unable to support your contention that this couldnt happen is aussie land.

It can't, and it hasn't, and it never will. We are nowhere near as litigious, and we agree that once a man or woman has been through a court and is cleared, then that is the end of the matter.

Civil tribunals deal with civil matters, courts deal with civil matters every day.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, once found innocent, they are free to go...not subject to the whims of a "civil trial" that makes a mockery of the law.


I mean, you live there, I figured you must know your own laws.

Okay wiseass, lets turn that around. WITHOUT GOOGLE or any reference material of any kind, you explain to me the reasoning behind the Miranda statutes, and quote me the exact case law that accompanied it. I want the names and the specific situation that created the evolution of this process.

You live in the US, you must know this by heart.


What area of civil law do you work in? It is certainly no where where any knowledge of the law is required.

That's on a need to know basis. And you don't need to know.


Dude, you are about as clueless as they come. You really need to read some australian news and stop your obsession with the US.

And you need to stop giving me orders. I will do as I please, when I please, how I please and at any time I please.


Arent you embarrassed by how little you truly know about your own land while commenting about poor OJ and how it could "never happen there"?

I never said I didn't know, and you are assuming I didn't( as you never asked me ). Again (and this is for the third time) I suggest you discuss this with the Australian Law Society and stop bugging me.

Since that change there has not been once case brought to trial, not will there be, since the Court of Appeals (the austlii link I gave you) manages quite well.

zBoots
12-09-2008, 10:34 AM
It can't, and it hasn't, and it never will. We are nowhere near as litigious, and we agree that once a man or woman has been through a court and is cleared, then that is the end of the matter.

Civil tribunals deal with civil matters, courts deal with civil matters every day.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, once found innocent, they are free to go...not subject to the whims of a "civil trial" that makes a mockery of the law.


Gigs up homie. I already looked at your laws and guess what?

We have the 5th Amendment BECAUSE of your buddies under the crown. And lucky for OJ he didnt live is aussie land, or aussies just might rustle up some new evidence and have a new criminal trial too!

Not only could it happen in Australia and you have no national or constitutional protection against double jeapordy, it is implicitly allowed under your law given the right conditions.

They are not "free to go" civil OR criminally in much of aussie land.

Sonnabend
12-09-2008, 02:35 PM
Gigs up homie. I already looked at your laws and guess what?

We have the 5th Amendment BECAUSE of your buddies under the crown. And lucky for OJ he didnt live is aussie land, or aussies just might rustle up some new evidence and have a new criminal trial too!

You really don't read too well, do you?


They are not "free to go" civil OR criminally in much of aussie land.

I will say this one more time, and then I am done with you.

There is no "civil trial / extortion" after a criminal trial. Once freed, that's it, case over.

While I admire the US for many things, its litigious nature and love affair with lawyers and suing for anything at the drop of a hat is not one of them.

Re the law amendment discussed, since it was passed close to two years ago, not one case has come to trial. It is controversial in nature, and all cases are sent to the Court of Appeals.

Despite the fact it exists, no lawyer anywhere will touch it

AmPat
12-09-2008, 06:50 PM
Have you ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"?



So you reworded the charge to suit your ends, but the crime was the same. That's like calling your ass a rectum

Same thing, different name.I didn't do jack S***. "I" didn't murder anyone nor did "I" put anybody on trial. Feel as strongly as you like but DO NOT make this into a personal attack. I agree with you on many things but I will not quietly tolerate you turning me into your target. What I said was that he was tried under different charges. If you don't agree with that fine. Our laws are flawed but this is no different than when the police arrest someone and string several charges together for the same offense. If the perp gets off one one of the charges, he may still get prosecuted on another.


So you throw out the evidentiary rules as well...forget that the evidence was excluded the first time because it was tainted, or prejudiced, or suspect, or that the chain of evidence had been broken. "I" didn't throw anything out. Look up what some of that evidence was and why it was excluded if you feel so strongly about it., Bottom line for me is the evidence wasn't created especially for the civil trial, it existed and was factual. It tied OJ directly to the murders. Ergo, he is a murderer. Justice, at least a measured justice, was served.

If it is inadmissable in a court of law, what makes it okay to use now?? So, hypothetically, a confession excluded in a criminal trial because it was gained because the persons Miranda rights were violated is admssable in a civl trial?Once again, different rules for that evidence depending what court is hearing the evidence.


Wow...thats some court. Maybe you should hang a sign "abandon all hope of justice, all ye who enter here...we dont care about the facts, we just want your money. So what of they found you innocent, we'll fix THAT...."Maybe. Here's another thought. " Don't break the law or we will see you get the justice you deserve regardless the money you spend on high priced lawyers."


Please explain to me how you can possibly justify using "proof" that is inadmissable in a real court of law.
I'd love to. As soon as I attend law school and pass the BAR, Ill get back to you. It shouldn't be too hard for you to look up that same information and see the differences in evidentiary rules.

The charges had been reworded, and evidence that was thrown out of a criminal court is now "admissable".
I guess sometimes crime doesn't pay.

He was put on trial for the same crime over the deaths of the same two people..a crime he had already been cleared of.
Bad court + bad jury + good lawyers = bad verdict

Wrongful death = murder = 2 trials = Double jeopardy.
In the U. S. system of justice that is not true no matter how many times you re-phrase it or bang your head against a wall.

Incidentally, you didnt answer my question.What if the civil trial said he was clear. Try him again..and again..and again...and again..???
Apparently you missed this:
There is always an end to any game. If you go to court and lose, that's it. Case closed. I said the rules of evidence were relaxed, not that there was a different "level of proof".

Admit it...this "civil trial" business is revenge and greed and nothing else. He was tried by twelve and found not guilty.OK, revenge perhaps, nothing else, I don't know the motives of the Goldmans. I'm sure they have more than one emotion over this. How about they wanted a Sociopathic, murderous bastard not getting off with no repercussions?

So [QUOTE]why bother with a criminal trial at all, since all you'll do afterwards is haul him into another court because youre not happy with the verdict, using "facts" and
"evidence" that was already ruled inadmissable...and for what?The criminal trial was for the murder charge. Kinda tough to ignore a crime and jump straight into a civil trial. That is tantamount to saying it's OK you killed somebody so let's worry about the restitution and skip that tiresome prison phase.

FOR MONEY.
Yep! Hit OJ right in the black heart he has.

Thats all Goldman has talked about for years, not his son, not to have further investigations done..no, all he ever talked about was how little money he was getting.
His son is dead. He is attacking OJ where he can. The courts booted this trial and he was left with one card to play. I find it impossible to believe you wouldn't do the same. Personally, I think I would lay in wait and kill the SOB.

Jumpy
12-09-2008, 06:55 PM
Thank goodness that murdering scumbag is finally behind bars. I doubt he had a fair trial though.. with his well known murdering history. Still, for the Goldmans, and Nicole's family, I am glad that he is finally locked up.

zBoots
12-09-2008, 09:11 PM
You really don't read too well, do you?



I will say this one more time, and then I am done with you.

There is no "civil trial / extortion" after a criminal trial. Once freed, that's it, case over.


Not only is that untrue, you followed your beloved crown to passing a law to allow criminal double jeopardy.

You have no constitution protection against it and laws explicitly FOR it.

You have some shattered glass house and real audacity yelling at us about it; own it baby. Double jeapordy at the behest of the crown.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hatejane
12-10-2008, 01:24 PM
Justice delayed can still be justice...I don't give a shit why he is in prison, I just think prison is the place for murderers...( well, actually, an electric chair in prison)

Sonnabend
12-10-2008, 02:31 PM
By "you" I am referring to the US and US law, not "you" personally.


You should be ashamed of yourself.

*snore*

asdf2231
12-10-2008, 05:40 PM
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k300/agentbedhead/Seven/ojxmas.jpg