Moltisanti Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I'm pretty sure even if he confessed to the double homicide, he would run no risk of being prosecuted again. And there are PLENTY of weirdos out there that still believe in this scumbag's innocence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jenbobblehead Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 maybe the lawyers can chime in, but i found this pretty good explaination of double jeopardy at some yahoo site: It's a constitutional prohibition against being charged twice for the same (or related) crime, by the same authority, based on the same circumstances. First, it applies only to subsequent prosecutions based on the same circumstances, and by the same sovereign. So, if the state wants to go after you based on violation of state criminal laws, that doesn't bar the federal govt for prosecuting based on violation of federal laws. Second, it applies only to the same criminal charge, or a lesser included charge. That means, where where proving all elements of one crime automatically proves another. So, battery (harmful contact of another) may be a lesser included charge of homicide (killing of another), since if the homicide is proven, the battery is also automatically proven. Double jeopardy does not apply if each crime has one element that the other does not. So, assault with deadly weapon (attempt to harm another using a deadly weapon) and homicide. Since the use of a deadly weapon is not an element of the homicide, and resulting death is not an element of the assault, they are considered different crimes. However, in practice, most state courts have established that crimes like that are sufficiently similar if the underlying facts can be used to prove both simultaneously, even if the textual elements may be described differently. In other words, merger (of a lesser included crime) can occur either based on the elements of the crime as defined by the statute, or as those crimes are alleged and prosecuted in a particular case. Conspiracy has as elements an agreement to commit some crime, and some overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy. The requirement for an agreement is not an element of most crimes, and the physical actions of those crimes are not an element of conspiracy. So, conspiracy does not merge into the other crime, and can still be prosecuted separately in almost all jurisdictions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 because of double jeopardy, maybe. i don't know - if he confessed, even if he was found not guilty (although no one likely believes he's fully innocent), i'd think they'd lock him away. Nope. They can't lock him away with a conviction. They can't convict him without a trial. And they can't put him on trial again because the first trial reached a conclusion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moltisanti Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Remember when Barry Sheck and that other DNA lawyer completely destroyed that Dennis Fung cop on the stand? And he then hugged them after he came off the stand the final time? Should have known then it was over for the prosecution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I'm sick of you people ragging on USC football players! Quit it! Also, he swore under oath that he didn't do it....so couldn't they get him for perjury if he revealed that he really did? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest tandylacker Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I know they can't get him for homicide, nor perjury since he didn't take the stand... But there has got to be something to charge him with... Maybe him obstructed the investigation in some way... I don't know... Really all I want to happen is everything related to him making money or getting semi-positive attention gets boycotted. Showtime had a OJ show where he played pranks on people. I don't know if it even aired, but I think it was called Juiced. (Punk'd) One of the bits was he was trying to sell his white bronco... Come on! He's not even a likable murderer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ben Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Lawyer here chiming in. They technically could possibly charge him federally for violation of their civil rights, like they did against the Klan members that were found not guilty of the underlying murders in the 60's. It's not likely, but it could be argued that by denying them there right to live is a violation of their civil rights (right to live one's life is a basic civil right). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest tandylacker Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I'm sick of you people ragging on USC football players! Quit it! Also, he swore under oath that he didn't do it....so couldn't they get him for perjury if he revealed that he really did? did he? you can get many years for perjury. i'm sure he would get all of them Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Is this really real? What is wrong with this picture: FOX news is the platform for conservative pundits to complain about how poor TV ruins lives and degrades our society.FOX TV puts "programming" on like this as prime time entertainmentFOX news complains about the poor programming that people watch in prime time as if it is the people's fault that they are watching poor programming. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest tandylacker Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 FOX news complains about the poor programming that people watch in prime time as if it is the people's fault that they are watching poor programming. But if it makes money, then how could it poor... ? Mu uh ha ha ha. Anyhow, I was hoping a lawyer would come up. I figured there was one on here some where. OJ trial probably doesn't have the weight of the Klan debacle... But that would be nice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moltisanti Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 He never took the stand, but he did have that one statement at the end of the trial where that fucking moron Lance Ito inexplicably allowed him to stare at the jury and say something to the effect of how he "could not, would not, and in no way possible have ever murdered his ex-wife." Thanks a lot, Judge. Hope you're happy, to this day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest tandylacker Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 He never took the stand, but he did have that one statement at the end of the trial where that fucking moron Lance Ito inexplicably allowed him to stare at the jury and say something to the effect of how he "could not, would not, and in no way possible have ever murdered his ex-wife." Thanks a lot, Judge. Hope you're happy, to this day. There is a lot about that trial that I have forgotten. I followed it semi-close, but it lasted so long and was sooo long ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 The White Bronco chase:6/17/94.I know this because my family were just moving in to the house here.We watched with boxes unpacked strewn about,amazed..I also have a Phish show from that date.The band evidently was watching the chase backstage at the set break,and when they came out for the 2nd set,every song's lyrics were rearranged with an OJ motif.During the jam segments Fishman would blurt out "run OJ run!" & other craziness. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I saw Dr. Henry Lee (love him!) speak a couple years ago and he definitely implied that there was a possiblility OJ's son did it.But he also pointed out the shoddy police work and that because of it, no one would ever really be able to tell who the real killer was. He wasn't saying that OJ wasn't involved, however. Me? I think the bastard did it all by himself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IATTBYB Posted November 16, 2006 Author Share Posted November 16, 2006 I saw Dr. Henry Lee (love him!) speak a couple years ago and he definitely implied that there was a possiblility OJ's son did it.But he also pointed out the shoddy police work and that because of it, no one would ever really be able to tell who the real killer was. He wasn't saying that OJ wasn't involved, however. Me? I think the bastard did it all by himself. Did OJ have a son with his first wife? Is this the son who Dr. Lee implicates? Or was he saying that OJ's and Nicole's son possibly killed his mother? How old was their son at the time of the murders? Can I Google these questions for answers? When will the questions end? Can't we all get along? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Did OJ have a son with his first wife? Is this the son who Dr. Lee implicates? Or was he saying that OJ's and Nicole's son possibly killed his mother? How old was their son at the time of the murders? Can I Google these questions for answers? When will the questions end? Can't we all get along? OJ and Nicole's son, who I think was somewhere around 16 at the time. Like I said, he didn't come right out and say it, but he did conclude his presentation by showing a picture of the kid wearing what looks like the same hat that was found at the scene. Obviously this doesn't constitute concrete evidence, but it was just interesting how he stuck that in there and said "does that hat look familiar?" I think he was trying to plant a seed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I remember the talk of OJ's son's involvement. I way waaaay too into the OJ trial. Natural Born Killers came out that year. I remember the feeling walking out of the theater, like I had just seen the first sane thing I'd seen months. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Preferred B Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 I saw Dr. Henry Lee (love him!) speak a couple years ago and he definitely implied that there was a possiblility OJ's son did it.But he also pointed out the shoddy police work and that because of it, no one would ever really be able to tell who the real killer was. He wasn't saying that OJ wasn't involved, however. Me? I think the bastard did it all by himself. A year or two after the trial is when my sister was in law school. Johnny Cochran came in and spoke to one of her classes. I don't remember specifically what my sister told us about it, but I definitely remember that he heavily, wink-wink-nudge-nudge style, implied that O.J. had been - if not the sole responsible party - extremely involved. Not that it would have been any big surprise, obviously. But man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Shouldn't we be focusing on more important issues, like how much John Kerry hates our troops? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest tandylacker Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Shouldn't we be focusing on more important issues, like how much John Kerry hates our troops? What? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tweedfolds Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 So How long before we see O.J. on the Surreal Life with Jared the Subway guy, Stephanie Tanner from Full House, and Jay Bennett? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Who the hell wants to share a house with O.J.? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 jay bennett is definitely not famous enough for his own reality TV show. Jeff Tweedy isn't even famous enough for that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.