OT - breaking news - News conference about knife found at OJ's estate
He was aquitted. No need to bring new evidence. The prosecution got their shot and missed. You don't get a redo.
Actually it doesn't, at least not necessarily. If there were offenses that he was not charged with then they could charge him on those (or altogether different) offense and that would not violate double jeopardy.
And I could be charged with a felony for taking a beer out of my friend's fridge without permission (in Michigan anyway). The implication in the article is that they have the murder weapon, let's go get our man and do this the right way.
What if you're friend invited you into his home, put on some team gear (let's say an authentic jersey) and switched the channel to the game on his 60" OLED. Could you argue that he was practically asking you to drink one of his fridge beers?
at a different venue and lower standard of proof.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Yup. I mean he has basically admitted that he did it. There was that book he wrote, "If I Did It" I think, in which his attempt to pretend to be speaking hypothetically lasted for about a half page.
didn't write that book. He signed off on it being published under his name because he needed the money.
Irrelevant but interesting factoid: there is only one instance in US history where a court effectively made an exception to the double jeopardy rule and allowed a defendant to be tried on the exact same charge of which he had been acquitted years earlier. The defendant was a mob hitman who was acquitted of murder in 1977 because his bosses bribed the judge in the original trial. According to the court that re-tried him in 1994, the original trial was a sham and the defendant was thus never truly put "in jeopardy of life and limb", so double jeopardy never actually attached.
Would you deem this a relevant or even talk worthy topic? He can't be re-tried (double jeopardy). We all know he did it, and he is in jail for other stupid things.
Yeah, you're right, no one is interested in this which is why it's all over the news.
Television series recounting the OJ murder trial on FX.
I won't downvote you though because that avatar photo is solid.
It's been much better than I expected - Courtney B. Vance is playing Johnnie Cochran superbly, although Cuba Gooding Jr. just doesn't convince me he's OJ (for one thing, Cuba is too short and thin to be as intimidating as OJ was)
Courtney B. Vance was Ron Jones in Hunt For Red October (which I watched last night for the 13,672,458th time). And he is KILLING IT as Cochran
I agree Cuba Gooding Jr. might not strike as much fear as OJ due to build, but the emotional swings he seems to have pretty down. I've been very impressed with the acting (I dislike Travolta a lot, but man the guy was made to play Bob Shapiro, Vance as Cochran, etc.). The show is extremely enjoyable.
And we're about to get into the "slam dunk case" falling apart. Should be very fascinating.
will be found on the knife. you better come clean hatter, or the judge will throw the book at ya!
it would have been a lot cleaner. And I would have charged OJ enough money to retire on for doing it.
/and Kato would have gotten it too
and if it was your hit you wouldn't have been stupid enough to do it. you are a paper tiger and too smart.
Every man has a code.
Now if it was just the boyfriend, and especially Kato? No problem.
don't think he could. He would be violating the "no children" part of his code.
... convincing a jury that there is institutional racism in some of our police departments, and that could raise "reasonable doubt"? I think that was a terrificdefense strategy.
jackie chiles?
The thing I remember most about the case now 20+ years later was the scene in my office when the verdict was announced. If you remember, the jury only went over for a few short hours which had everyone believing it was a quick guilty verdict. When they announced innocent on all charges all the white guys (there were about 10 of us total in the office - half white and half black) were looking at each other with mouths open saying "what the fuck? How in the HELL did he get aquited???" While the black guys were jumping up and down, hugging each other and yelling "YES" over and over.
It was all about race, not evidence, even for us just watching from afar.
And I think the political climate in California at the time was the main cause of the outcome of the trial. The LA riots were still fresh in everyone's mind, Rodney King was still a household name, and so forth and so on.
Come to think of it, the 90's were actually a pretty eventful decade.
At the risk of violating the "no politics" rule, this is an interesting perspective I heard from one of my Black friends: "We're not dumb, we know he probably did it. And it wasn't our intention to cheer on a murderer. But after decades of watching White dudes commit crimes against Blacks and walk away scot-free, and less than five years after watching four White cops get away with brutalizing a Black motorist, it gave us some satisfaction to see a brother turn that equation around. That doesn't make it right, but it's just how we felt."
for the wrong man. O.J. was about as "typical black man" as I am "your typical billionaire." O.J. was black in skin color only. If not for his career, going from juco to USC and HOF NFLer, thanI could understand his reaction.
However, the allowances given him made him anything but the "typical oppressed" black man. I have no trouble with the verdict, simply because his all-star defense team made the LA. PD look like exactly what they are. There were so many instances during the course of the trial where it became extremely clear they virutally ensured the verdict. I had no problems telling any of my white friends that had I been a member of that jury, I would have had no choice but write "Not Guilty" on that little piece of white paper given me.
There are, as you are fully aware, certain things in our constitution that, when followed by the authorities assure a fair, unbiased outcome. When one is not followed, exacerbated by about 15 more being ignored, the nature of the crime becomes moot because the only fair verdict can be the one handed down.
Your black friends were cheering because O.J. could afford the same defense team any other multi-millionaire would have hired facing the same charges. They were, in effect, cheering the exact reason for the still existing huge disparity in regard to the way whites and blacks are treated when facing the same charges.
The only thing we can be sure of is their is no proof of the one-armed man, reportedly seen leaving the scene of the crime moments before police arrived.
to give me 15 down votes. Hate to be downvoted - no, i really don't - but I was going to say purely by waking up a sleeping puppy. But now that your awake, look around and keep those eyes open. Nice world.
Maybe OJ had something to do with that....
The human body is gross.
that.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Not true (state vs. federal).
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
He can't be charged with murder in CA again but depending on the circumstances someone in the US can be tried for the same crime twice. There was a push to bring federal charges against George Zimmerman as a recent example. Michael Vick was convicted in state and federal court. LAPD officers were convicted in federal court of violating Rodney King's rights.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Yes, but it would need to have a violation of a federal statute. So you'd need to have a federal offense that you could point to before there could be federal cause of action. Concept is known as "dual sovereignty" .
All of the cases you are talking about there was a federal statute that the federal government could prosecute under that was separate from the state jurisidction. (Zimmeran, Rodney King/LAPD where federal civil right statute violations; MIke Vick charge was predicated on federal animal fighting charges based on interstate commerce).
Theoretically they could bring a civil rights charge if they could present a theory. It'd be a stretch because there's not great grounds.
This has been raised before:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/11/could…
If there were a civil rights violation, in all likelihood, wouldn't there be a statute of limitations that would have already run its course?
Not my area of expertise - so I can't say definitively, but there are a number of exceptions to SOL, especially in the civil rights area under. I don't know if there's one simple enough for the crime or if you could try to shoehorn the crime into one of the other exceptions. So... theoretically yes, but if they thought they had enough they might try to find a way.