THE JUICE SAYS, "LOOKS LIKE 'DOUBLE JEOPARDY' BOBBY!"
ugh. ok. So obviously it would have been nice if someone other than O.J. came out in Robert Blake's defense (give me a break! You cannot compare the two cases!), but the press is all over this because he too was found liable of his wife's murder after being acquitted in the criminal trial. I'm sure Blake is just thrilled. Simpson, who says he has no opinion on Blake's guilt or innocence because he did not watch the trial, says Blake is a victim of double jeopardy. "I still don't get how anyone can be found not guilty of a murder and then be found responsible for it in any way shape or form," Simpson said in a phone interview from his Florida home. "... If you're found not guilty, how can you be found responsible? I'd love to hear how that's not double jeopardy." Simpson said Blake was subjected to an unfair system in which a civil jury can essentially reverse a criminal jury's finding by using a lesser standard of proof in which jurors need be convinced only by "a preponderance of the evidence," meaning at least 51 percent. "If that was the standard in criminal trials, only 51 percent, then so many people would be convicted that we'd have to build more jails," Simpson said. "The standard is the difference." He also thinks the awarded damage to the Bakley family of $30 million is "too coincidental" to the $33.5 million he was ordered to pay the Brown & Goldman families when he was found liable for the death of his wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman. When asked if he had any advice for to Blake, Simpson said, "If Robert Blake has friends and family around him, he'll do fine. I would give him the same advice I gave Michael (Jackson). You've got your kid. Go and raise your kid." Source: AP
posted by Tabloid Whore! at 11/19/2005
2 Comments:
It is not double jeopardy! A criminal conviction requires the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered his wife. This is a very high burden of proof and obviously there was not enough evidence to convict him. However, in civil cases the burden of proof is only a preponderance of evidence, meaning that the evidence only has to show that it is more likely than not that he murdered her. In addition, he is not really being tried for the same crime and obviously the punishment is not the same! And criminal and civil liability are not the same thing.
Anonymous did you even read this? Are you smoking crack? OJ said exactly the same thing you wrote about the difference between criminal and civil cases. The point he was trying to make was that he thinks it is wrong if you are found not guilty in a criminal trial, but yet that a civil trial can still go to civil court for the same thing. He said it is a problem with the court system. Pick one or the other, criminal or civil to sue. Even though I don't like OJ, his point makes sense. How can you say that Blake was not being tried for the same crime? He was being tried for the muder of his wife in both courts. The jury in civil said they believe he murdered her.
Post a Comment
<< Home