Discussion Board 4

Classmate’s Posts (DB4). (Needs just like some comments)

Robert Dlugaszewski 1) Criminal laws are the laws that define wrongs against a society and civil laws are laws that define the rights of one person against another (Textbook, Glossary) and in the criminal case against OJ Simpson the verdict of not guilty came from the jury that had to all agree on a verdict and the facts presented in the case that there was reasonable doubt about the DNA evidence and the alleged misconduct by the LAPD were enough to push the jury toward a not guilty verdict. Where as in the civil case against OJ Simpson the jury finds Simpson liable for the murders based on the same facts presented in the previous trial but in a civil case the majority vote gets the verdict and in this case they deemed his reasoning of alleged misconduct by the LAPD inflammatory and speculative. 2) In the Criminal case for OJ Simpson it was the People of the State of California and in the civil case for OJ Simpson it was the families of the victims, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman. 3) Just like in the OJ Simpson case even though someone is acquitted of a crime doesn't mean that they didn't commit the crime it's just that the evidence wasn't substantial enough to prove the defendant not guilty, that the evidence was obtained illegally, and the list goes on about ways that guilty people get away with things based on legal rights or even in some cases just luck, but either way they should be held liable in a civil case so that when they do "get away with murder" the parties affected by these actions can get compensation for their troubles. Sina Abbasi Kammasai The differences between the two cases impacted the verdicts for many reasons. First one being in the criminal trial OJ wasn’t required to testify, so he decided not to, but in the civil trial he was required to testify because of the plaintiffs’ option which forces him to testify. Another difference between the two was that in the criminal trial a conviction for OJ required a finding that he committed the murder beyond any reasonable doubt whereas in the civil case and a guilty verdict for OJ only required 9 out of 12 votes and “the basic legal standard being that in all probability Mr. Simpson committed the slayings” the keyword being probability.

The party in the criminal case against OJ was the state of California which was charging OJ for the murders of Nicole Brown and her friend Ron Goldman, the reason the state was the party involved in the criminal case is because as stated in the textbook, “A crime is a wrong of such serious nature that the appropriate level of government steps in to prosecute and punish the wrongdoer to deter others from engaging in the same type of conduct”. (Textbook, pg.132, para 8-1b). The parties that were against OJ in the civil case were the families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, they had the right to sue civilly because when the act that is committed as a crime causes harm to an identifiable person, that person

may recover from the wrongdoer for monetary damages to compensate for the harm (Textbook, pg.132,para 8-1b)

I do believe a person can be held liable off the same exact facts in a civil case because a civil case is more personal, meaning it’s the families or person that harm was done to taking action against the wrongdoer, so they are the ones personally getting the attorneys they want to represent them so those attorneys might be able to use the same facts and present them to the court in a better way or find more in depth details and do an overall better job than the state.

Nicholas Karwoski The difference between criminal law and civil law played a huge role in the verdicts of the OJ Simpson case. A crime is a wrong that comes from a violation of public duty, whereas a tort that is in question in civil cases is a wrong that comes from a violation of private duty. When a crime happens the government steps in to prosecute and punish the wrongdoer to deter that person from repeating the act. (Section 8-1b para 1) There are three different types of torts there is intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. (Section 8-1c Para1 Online) In the OJ Simpson cases he was charged for murder as well as civilly sued by Nicole Browns family. I think it is much easier to make a person pay money than it is to send someone to jail for the rest of their lives and is why the cases turned out the way they did. The jurors knew that he had a large amount of money, so it was easy for them to find him guilty and make him pay the Brown family even if they were not exactly for sure that he did commit the crime.

The party that brought the criminal case against OJ Simpson was the prosecution of the state of California. The party that brought the civil case against OJ Simpson would be the plaintiff which in this case was Nicole Browns family. In both cases OJ Simpson the defendant was the other side of the party.

I do not think that a person should be held liable in a civil case if they were acquitted in a criminal case. If the same exact facts are presented in both cases, they should not have to go through another trial. It is unfair to have a person defend themselves in a second case if they were already proven not guilty in the first case. In OJ Simpsons case he had a large amount of money but many people do not so you would be ruining their life even though they already were acquitted of the crime.

Reese Murphy

1. The first thing to do to fully answer this question is to understand the difference between criminal and civil law. Criminal law as defined by Cornell Law School is a system of laws concerned with punishment of individuals who commit crimes. With that being said, civil law is anything that is not at criminal matter, commonly labeled as a dispute. OJ was found liable of the murders in civil court brought on by the families of the victims. The difference between criminal and civil law comes down to monetary compensation in this trial. If he were found guilty in the first case, which would have been criminal, he would have gotten jail time. He was found liable in the civil case, meaning that he had to pay millions to the families and turn over all of his assets.

2. In the criminal case, the video states that there were 12 people on the jury, 4 being men and 8 being women. He had a team of attorneys, including Robert Kardashian. The case lasted 8 months and the decision was made by the jury in under 4 hours. In the civil case, the families of the victims are going after him, claiming he is liable for the deaths of the two victims. Simpson was ordered to pay over millions to the families and forfeit his assets.

3. I do not. If they were guilty of what they were held to trial of, and were acquitted, then that is the fault of the court and jury. This is a very easy and simple answer, as it is the 5th amendment in the bill of rights. It is called double jeopardy: "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The 5th amendment is also referenced in the text (textbook chapter contents term 12). Despite if the first case is criminal and the second is civil, if the case is based on the same "exact" facts, then that is is double jeopardy to try them again. With that being said, I believe there are special circumstances such as OJ's case. OJ was acquitted in the criminal case despite the overwhelming evidence against him, essentially with blood leading right to his doorstep and all over his Bronco. The family was not made whole, so they took it up in civil case as more of a "liability case". Restitution paid to the victims will benefit the families, whereas the verdict in the first hearing does not do them any good (textbook 7-1d paragraph 1)

Re