Could someone simplify to me why, O.J. Simpson, must pay money to Ron Goldman's family if he was innocent?
I just don't understand, if he's innocent of the murder, then how he should be paying money to his ex-wife's family or ron goldman's...can anyone give me simplified answer why he is liable in civil court, when he was found innocent in the criminal trial? Doesn't...being found innocent mean..he didn't do it?
( I do personally think he did do it, but could you just explain this all to a layman)?
Answers:
A jury of his peers, wowed by his celebrity and expensive lawyers, and amused by the bush league prosecutors, found him not guilty in a case which guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Who knows what is reasonable to most commoners who comprise a jury?
In a civil court the Goldman family and their lawyers were able to show that OJ was responsible for the death of their son by the preponderance of evidence submitted.
thats the whole thing HES NOT INNOCENT
He was convicted of it in the a civil trial when means that he doesn't have to go to jail (from the criminal trial) but he must make restitution via the civil laws.
probably a settlement. Just because he wasn't convicted criminally doesn't mean the deceased's family couldn't sue him in civil court. They may have won there for wrongful death, which would be why OJ would have to pay both families.
I think the possibility of "If I Did It" settled that one. He's guilty as sin.
civil court and the other court are two separate courts. one is not linked to the other. are you sure you wanted the simplified version or did you want the whole truth?
i heard somthing about there were parts in the court, he won one part and lost the other.
He was found not guilty in a criminal court. In civil court he was found to be responsible for the two murders. Think of civil court like Judge Judy, with a jury, and for big bucks. Plus civil judgements are not as hard to win as a criminal one, since the defendant will just lose some money, and not his freedom.
The families took O.J. to civil court for a monetary winning and he was found guilty. The earlier criminal court found him innocent for lack of evidence. Apparently, it was enough evidence in the civil court. Interesting case.
Because he was found guilty in a civil trial.
he was not innocent. justice in the American system is not perfect...an expensive lawyer works wonders.
Good ole OJ. The juice is loose. and hes one of the people that played the american justice system at its own game. Oh yeah he killed two people and lives to laugh about it. O.J. = GUILTY
Ghost ride that whip O.J. , Ghost Ride It!
Well, some folks think he was guilty even though he was found guilty. Some folks don't know how to move on, I guess, you know.
Personally I don't think he personally did it. I think bad guys were trying to get back at him for some reason. And they did it. Maybe since they cant get those guys, the family feels he's responsible
The level that has to be proven is different in civil court. He was found guilty in civil court where the plaintiff only had to prove that a reasonable person would believe he committed the crime. In criminal court, the plaintiff had to prove guilt beyond all doubt, and therefore he was declared innocent.
He was innocent in criminal court
GUILTY in civil court.
He wasn't found innocent, he was found not guilty.
They never proved his innocence, but they could not find him guilty in criminal court. They could find him guilty in civil court, because the evidence showed he was guilty.
You can be guilty and be found "not guilty". But OJ was not "found innocent" because he was guilty.
Their are two different trials and criminal and a civil trial.
He was not found innocent, they just couldn't find him guilty. Civil court is not the same as criminal court. In civil court, he's being sued for wrongful death, which is not the same as a criminal charge. Hope this helps.
Ok as far as I understand it.. In America there is the Federal court system, which found OJ innocent of the crime... but then they also have the civil court system. Don't ask me why they have 2 sysyems it's America.. so just accept it... anyway!
The civil courts found him guily of profiting from the use of his ex-wifes boyfriends name in that show where they used the name (as you have guessed I can't rember exactly what he was found guilty of)
Even though the civil courts can not convict OJ for murder the civil system can still find him guilty for hardship caused by the death of this person.. if they can find a strong enough link of course.
So basicly it means if someone can't get you in the Federal court they might find a way to get at you through the civil court system.. Anyway it's America, it's weird and the good old USA is litigation heaven.
PS if someone can explain this better please feel free to correct anything I have said.. I don't claim to know the US legal system very well.
Simply this: because under the law, he was not "innocent".
In criminal court, he was found "not guilty", but was found responsible for the murders later in a civil court.
Civil court and criminal court have two different standards of evidence to prove responsibility for an act:
In *criminal court* (the place where the government takes you if they want to put you in prison), the government must prove to the jury that you are guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." The jury must come back with a unanimous verdict.
In *civil court* (the place where one citizen takes another citizen if they have a beef with them) the plaintiff must prove you responsible "by a preponderance of the evidence." In other words, you must be just 51% wrong to be found responsible in civil court, whereas you must be 100% wrong to be found responsible in criminal court. In addition, in civil court the jury verdict does not have to be unanimous: the jury simply votes on who they believe is responsible, and if 7 out of the twelve jurors believe you are responsible, then you will have to pay.
The result of all of the above is that the standard of proof is lower in civil court than it is in criminal court. In criminal court, it is assumed that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in civil court, it is not assumed that either party is "innocent", and the jury simply picks the person they think is more likely than the other to be responsible.
So what happened in the case of O.J. Simpson? He was tried for murder and was found not guilty by the jury in criminal court for whatever reason. The Goldman family was reasonably upset, and so the Goldmans (*not* the government) brought him to civil court and demanded restitution for the deaths. The jury in the civil court sided with the Goldmans and ordered that O.J. pay damages. I am certain that the Goldmans would love to see O.J. behind bars, but in civil court you can only sue for money.
So, O.J. is now paying (or not paying) the money he owes the Goldmans as a result of them suing him in civil court.
In fact, it is fairly common for a crime to result in both civil and criminal trials. Suppose for example that you assault me and knock out 3 of my teeth. The police arrest you and you are tried for assault and battery. You are found guilty and sentenced to spend a year in jail. Well, that is all fine and dandy, but what about me? You might be in jail, but I am still missing 3 teeth, and it will cost me several thousand dollars to have the dentist replace them! So, I sue you in civil court to get you to pay *me* for the damage that you have done, and pay my medical bills, etc. In other words, in criminal court, you pay your debts to society. In civil court, you pay your debts to specific people (like the Goldmans).
I am not saying he did it or he didn't do it. Neither Ron Goldman or OJ's ex-wife were the Saints everyone depicts them to be though. Also both victims families sucked up the publicity like a Hoover Vacuum every chance they had.
In the US the court system breaks down in to two different parts the criminal and the civil court system. He was tried in both. Due to the fact he was found innocent in the criminal court of law he avoided a prison sentance. However when you file a lawsuit, a grievance or anything petty you go to the civil court. This court is its own party. In this court Oj was found guilty and thus since this court ordered him to pay money to his victims families.
Criminal courts do not find people to be innocent. They don't prove that you DIDN'T commit a crime, that's not how the system works. They can only either prove the charges against you, or not be able to prove the charges against you. "Not guilty" is really just a way of saying "not proven". If they can't prove you're guilty then they have to let you go. But that does not mean you didn't do anything wrong.
The reason why O.J. was sued in a civil trial and he lost is because the standards of proof in a civil court are much lower than those in a criminal court. In a criminal trial, they have to prove you're guilty beyond ANY reasonable doubt before they can convict you and put you in jail. But when somebody sues you for money, whoever simply has more proof on his side wins. The reason for the different standards is because getting thrown in jail is considered a LOT more serious than just losing money. O.J. won the criminal trial because they couldn't sufficiently prove the murder charges against him there, but he lost the civil trial because Ron Goldman's family provided enough proof in THAT court to show that O.J. was responsible for his death.
I know, it still seems pretty strange. In real life, a person either does something wrong or he doesn't. Look at it this way then, the real reason why O.J. won the criminal trial was probably because the prosecution was incredibly incompetent.
.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: