o.j. found guilty

[OJVIKE]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_ ... oj_simpson
about time!! a jury makes this thug pay.

[Hunter Morrow]

I felt, at the time about a year ago, that the case against O.J. this time was as weak as the first one was strong.
Do you think Simpson is being punished for his earlier alleged crime?

[OJVIKE]

I felt, at the time about a year ago, that the case against O.J. this time was as weak as the first one was strong.
Do you think Simpson is being punished for his earlier alleged crime?

if you beleive in good carma ...bad carma...what goes around comes around. hell yes.sooner or later this guy was gunna get what is owed to him. he now faces life in prison.....stay tuned.

[DeeEss57]

I felt, at the time about a year ago, that the case against O.J. this time was as weak as the first one was strong.
Do you think Simpson is being punished for his earlier alleged crime?

Probably. But, then, his acquittal may have given him the idea he could get away with anything.


Dawn

[jackal]

I thought it was intresting they way they asked for appeals in front of the trial judge
before the convicted were even taken into custody.

[John]

I felt, at the time about a year ago, that the case against O.J. this time was as weak as the first one was strong.
Do you think Simpson is being punished for his earlier alleged crime?

That is a excellent question. And it plays to the defense who say the jury was tainted.

How many here could have honestly said they had no opinion on that case that might cause her/him to be unable to judge OJ fairly in this case?

[glg]

How many here could have honestly said they had no opinion on that case that might cause her/him to be unable to judge OJ fairly in this case?

I'm not going to agree with others in this thread who think it's good he finally got his due. He likely got away with murder. He's not the first and won't be the last. But I also couldn't judge the guy fairly because of his conduct since the trial. He's absolutely off-his-rocker nuts.

[Mr. X]

Three facts:
1) There were no African-Americans in the 12 person jury of Simpson's Las Vegas trial.
2) There were 9 African-Americans in the 12 person jury of Simpson's LA trial.
3) Polling after the LA trial showed an enormous divide along racial lines as to his guilt or innocence.

The original jury pool in Vegas totaled 500 people of which only 4 were African Americans (must have been a statistical anomaly based on a random drawing of potential jurors since the African American population in Vegas has to be much more than 0.8% of the total). The trial judge allowed the prosecution to use two of their eight peremptory challenges to disqualify two African Americans from the jury. She argued that there was no evidence presented by the defense that the two challenges were racially motivated. I have to give her credit for having the courage to do that (but I am not making a value judgment on the appropriateness of the decision without knowing all the facts behind that decision).

In the end it would have been better to have had some African Americans in the Vegas jury pool if only for the sake of not giving ammunition to those that are predisposed to exploit it for their own purposes (usually involving self-promotion). However we do not have quota systems for juries in this country so it is what it is.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Raptorman]

I think in the long run he has a good chance of having this conviction overturned. There are just to many "little" things wrong with the whole case. Most importantly I think is the recording of the incident. I find it hard to believe that a judge would allow a tape of a crime to be put in evidence that the police did not make, and did not have access to until 8 days after the crime and after the person who made the recording sold it for over 200,000 dollars. Not to mention the only way he gives it up is if he has immunity. Something just don't seem right here. But, hey I could be wrong.

[Demi]

I think in the long run he has a good chance of having this conviction overturned. There are just to many "little" things wrong with the whole case. Most importantly I think is the recording of the incident. I find it hard to believe that a judge would allow a tape of a crime to be put in evidence that the police did not make, and did not have access to until 8 days after the crime and after the person who made the recording sold it for over 200,000 dollars. Not to mention the only way he gives it up is if he has immunity. Something just don't seem right here. But, hey I could be wrong.

What doesn't seem right is OJ didn't skate....yet. That'll probably change though.

[Colinito]

I don't understand how a juror knowing OJ's previous actions (the murders and the wacky #### behavior since then) is somehow "tainting" them. I think that knowledge is probably important to the case. It's part of who he is, and he is a central figure in the crime. Adolf Hitler gets picked up for assault and at his trial the jury is reminded, "Set aside for the moment the fact that he killed six million Jews..."

Um, no. Previous behavior is an excellent indicator of future (or present as the case may be) behavior. The truth is, America is very well educated on the OJ murder trial compared to the vast majority of criminal trials out there, and the perception that OJ got away with murder seems apt.

Me believing that as a juror in his new trial should be no problem.

[Mr. X]

I don't understand how a juror knowing OJ's previous actions (the murders and the wacky #### behavior since then) is somehow "tainting" them. I think that knowledge is probably important to the case. It's part of who he is, and he is a central figure in the crime. Adolf Hitler gets picked up for assault and at his trial the jury is reminded, "Set aside for the moment the fact that he killed six million Jews..."

Um, no. Previous behavior is an excellent indicator of future (or present as the case may be) behavior. The truth is, America is very well educated on the OJ murder trial compared to the vast majority of criminal trials out there, and the perception that OJ got away with murder seems apt.

Me believing that as a juror in his new trial should be no problem.

I am kind of torn on this one. On the one had I agree that a juror should be able to know about prior bad acts of a defendant in order to properly judge that person. On the other hand there is good legal precedent over many years that says that disclosing prior bad acts of a defendant has a more prejudicial effect than a probative benefit. In the end I tend to think the latter is better than the former and that we should keep our existing criminal procedures in place.

I guess you need to evaluate this question not in terms of how you would be able to act as a juror but how the typical jury would act. In a twelve person jury you are likely to have seven or eight that are dumb as rocks and gullible beyond all belief. You have to hope that four or five of the jurors will have some intelligence, be able to set aside whatever biases (*) they have, interpret the evidence correctly and then effectively advocate their position in jury deliberations and influence the dimwits into the correct verdict.

(*) We all have biases. There is no such thing as an unbiased jury.

[Colinito]

Point well taken. In this particular case I believe I am correct, but in projecting my belief onto the millions of other court cases, I can see the inherent danger.

You also reminded me how much I'd love to be a juror. I'd be damn good. You hear me State of Texas? I ain't doing nothing.