Any legal experts here can explain to me the difference? He was acquitted of Nicole and Ron’s murder, but was later found to be civilly liable and forced to pay 33.5 million dollars to the victims’ families. Umm… what’s civilly liable?? I mean he definitely did it.
shareI know it sounds odd but you can be found to be civilly liable without a criminal conviction.
A good comparison would be if you were in a car accident. One party does several thousand dollars damage to the other and there are some injuries. The police arrive on the scene and decides there isn't enough evidence for criminal charges. However there are damages and the guilty party (thru insurance) that pays.
In the case of OJ, he was found not guilty due to insufficient evidence; he wasn't found innocent or exonerated. In a criminal trial the defendant doesn't have to testify. In civil trials, the defendant may be forced to testify. In a criminal trial, there has to be 100% agreement among the jury beyond a reasonable doubt (ie 99.99% certain). In civil trials, it's by majority and it's reasonably likely (ie about 70% or so).
Ah thanks for the explanation. Still bizarre as the original trial acquitted him due to ‘insufficient evidence’. The dude is guilty as F. How much evidence do they need?! The only reason why he got off is because he benefited from the race appeasement social-political climate at the time. The establishment didn’t want blacks rioting if he got convicted.
shareThe prosecutors in the criminal trial had several opportunities throughout to counter the defense's claims that, for whatever reson(s), they never acted on or just dropped the ball on.
Most crucially, was the mentioning of seeing a "possible bloody fingerprint" on the Gate of Nicole's house during Furhman's testimony, which he said in his book was also observed by his partner Brad Roberts & was recorded in their crime scene notes. Somehow, this piece of evidence was never collected, & was never mentioned again by the prosecution NOR the defense. AFAIK, it was never brought up in the Civil trial either.
It does help to be rich and have good lawyers; had OJ not had the legal team he would be in jail. No doubt it cost him an arm and a leg. Race was no doubt a factor in the verdict.
shareTo put it simply there is a lower burden of proof.
To be considered guilty in criminal court. you have to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
To be found guilty in civil court you just have to prove that it was more likely than not that he did it.
And that is the answer.
The irony is that the plaintiff attorneys in the Civil trial presented a more simplified, yet much stronger case against him than the Crinimal trial prosecutors did.
And the judge in the Civil trial kept a much tighter reign on things than Ito did in the Crinimal trial.