posted on March 20, 2001 11:06:32 AM new
When a person's liberty is at stake, "beyond a reasonable doubt" should be understood as convinced "to a moral certainty" Did anyone consider if you took a blood soaked leather glove and let it dry that it would shrink as a result of drying. Mr. Cochran made a statement early on to the effect, that it would only take one minority in the jury to achieve a acquittal.
posted on March 20, 2001 11:55:34 AM new
Codaurus,
I am only telling you what the African American community said - I am not putting words in their mouth.
As I explained - IMHO - the DNA evidence was over their heads that is why he was acquitted.
I do like your opinion regarding the shallowness of OJ's friends. However, I do feel they know he was guilty as well. But I also agree that in order to maintain their fluffy existence in their world - getting as far away from OJ as possible was their best move.
posted on March 20, 2001 12:58:53 PM new
codasaurus - You asked, If the community is as racially poplarized as you maintain then how do you account for the fact that the entire jury voted to acquit? Wouldn't one or two of the jurors who weren't black have maintained their belief in his guilt and hung the jury?
If I may - I've often wondered what, if any, difference the 'jury selection specialist' made in the outcome of this jury's decision to aquit. Having the extra money to afford her 'talents' in which jurors were selected, or rejected, might have had more 'weight' than some are aware. Just another possibility.
posted on March 20, 2001 04:42:18 PM new
Hi Linda,
I am sure a jury selection specialist does make a difference in the outcome of the juries composition. The prosecution used such a specialist also and frequently does. I am sure it would be to one's advantage to have enough money to spend dollar for dollar for your defence as the other side does to prosecute. It does not often happen though.
I also wonder what would have happened if protocals were followed, if the prosecutions agenda was to present a case instead of a show, and so many other things.
posted on March 20, 2001 05:39:12 PM new
Hello back Grannyfox - Was off fixing dinner.
I wasn't aware the prosecution had also used a jury selection specialist. Learn something new all the time.
I agree there was a 'show' atmosphere during the trial. The TV cameras in the court room seemed to have an effect on a lot of people. The judge, attornies and Marsha Clark especially. She seemed more worried about her hairdo and how she appeared than about presenting her case. I felt a sense of sadness for Chris Darden though. I think he truly believed, in his heart, that OJ had committed this crime and that they had presented a very strong case.
I was glad the decision was made not to have cameras watching the civil trial.
posted on March 20, 2001 06:18:22 PM newKRS: You are wrong! (Do you have *any* idea how long I've waited to say that?!?!).
The difference between not guilty and innocent is NOT just a matter of symantics. In fact, if you want to be considered 'innocent' you have to have a hearing before a judge (sometimes even a trial) to be officially declared 'innocent'. It is very rarely done, but it happens.
posted on March 20, 2001 06:29:04 PM new
In a sense, Ken is right. By law there is a presumption of innocence, until proven guilty. This didn't happen (to the satisfaction of the jury, of course).
But there is also the book definition of "innocent" and if he murdered those two people then he is indeed guilty and not innocent.
posted on March 20, 2001 06:36:20 PM new
James: I was speaking of being legally innocent. Just because someone is deemed 'not guilty' in a court of law does NOT mean they have been declared legally innocent by said court.
Yes, there is a presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, however legally someone who has been judged not guilty is NOT being judged as innocent.
posted on March 20, 2001 06:47:36 PM new
James: Heck, they could be innocent the entire time!!
My point is that when a court judges someone 'not guilty' they are NOT saying, "Nope, no way, no how this guy could have ever in a million years have done X,Y, or Z". What they are saying is that the facts presented support the idea that the guy didn't do it.
The *assumption* is that means, "Nope, no way, no how this guy could have ever in a million years have done X,Y, or Z". For all practical purposes, that is good enough.
However, to have a court legally declare somone innocent there must be another ruling by the court. Again, this is rare because: 1) Not guilty is 'good enough' for most folks, and 2) Many courts refuse to hear the cases.
posted on March 20, 2001 09:07:44 PM new
Yes, the court can declare someone 'innocent'. Usually they use the same fact patterns from the first trial (one must be found not guily first, of course). Don't know much about the specifics other than, as I said, it is rare.
