NYPD officers cleared on shooting.

nuttyjoe · 04-28-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

The second trial was a civil suit brought against him by Fred Goldman and the Browns. They cleaned him out, but he has not paid very much.

Simpson will always be guilty in my book, but the state botched the case because they moved it out of Santa Monica to downtown L.A., and if the glove does not fit, you must acquit. That was Chris Darden's mistake. He felt he got railroaded into prosecuting, because he did not want to. Johnny Cochran ran a brilliant trial, I must say.

We will probably always disagree here, H80. I think the state screwed up not so much in the change of venue; but in how they presented the case. They presented evidence backed up by one Dennis Fung, an evidence technician who under questioning by the defense was shown to have mishandled the blood specimens from the crime scene; thereby tainting this evidence. Let us also not forget the huge mistake of even letting Mark Fuhrman testify. That was idoitic.
A police detective who, under questioning, admits to having previously manufactured evidence against former defendants? This, put together with Fung's mistakes, practically guaranteed the aquittal.
With such revelations before me; if I were on a jury I would have found Charles Manson not guilty.
BTW, trying to introduce the DNA evidence was rendered moot after these such relevations. Any competent jurist would have to ask themselves just how the police obtained such evidence.
Lastly, Johnnie Cochran's handling of the closing argument was nothing short of a masterstroke. The prosecution made the mistake of then banking on the glove supposedly worn by Simpson; and having him put on the glove in front of the jury. It was all over then.
The glove appeared entirely too small for Simpson's hand. Cochran's statement that "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" was exactly the perfect line at the perfect time. That comment will live forever in legal history.
We do disagree on Chris Darden, however. I havealways wodered why Gil Garcetti did not personally try such a high-profile case. Did he already know the evidence was too weak to stand up to the likes of Johnnie Cochran and F. Lee Bailey; possibly the finest legal minds in the country? or was he afraid of the backlash of a failure if he personally tried this case himself? We may never know this answer.

highway80west · 04-28-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

We will probably always disagree here, H80. I think the state screwed up not so much in the change of venue; but in how they presented the case. They presented evidence backed up by one Dennis Fung, an evidence technician who under questioning by the defense was shown to have mishandled the blood specimens from the crime scene; thereby tainting this evidence. Let us also not forget the huge mistake of even letting Mark Fuhrman testify. That was idoitic.
A police detective who, under questioning, admits to having previously manufactured evidence against former defendants? This, put together with Fung's mistakes, practically guaranteed the aquittal.
With such revelations before me; if I were on a jury I would have found Charles Manson not guilty.
BTW, trying to introduce the DNA evidence was rendered moot after these such relevations. Any competent jurist would have to ask themselves just how the police obtained such evidence.
Lastly, Johnnie Cochran's handling of the closing argument was nothing short of a masterstroke. The prosecution made the mistake of then banking on the glove supposedly worn by Simpson; and having him put on the glove in front of the jury. It was all over then.
The glove appeared entirely too small for Simpson's hand. Cochran's statement that "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" was exactly the perfect line at the perfect time. That comment will live forever in legal history.

Who can ever forget Barry Schek's famous question to Dennis Fung: "WHERE IS IT, MR. FUNG!?"

pensacola_niceman · 04-29-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

That's because you don't understand exactly what double jeopardy is. It only applies to murder. The police in Rodney King's case were never originally charged with murder. Hence, they could be re-tried at will with whatever the Justice Department so wished to charge them with. Our friend OJ was originally charged with murder. His aquittal in the first trial kicked in double jepardy. He now could not (and never can be tried for the murders of his ex-wife and young Mr. Goldman. This did not mean that he couldn't be charged with anything else, and tried for it. Hence, the trial for wrongful death.
As far as the NYC case goes, as I understand it; this trial did not have them charged with murder. There is no statue of limitations on murder in any jurisdiction in America of which I am aware of. They can be tried and re-tried for this charge whenever prosecutors want to; for as long as they live.

OK. How could you be found gulity of wrongful death when you were aquitted of murder? It makes no sense to me. Of course, the legal system often doesn't make sense.

highway80west · 04-29-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

OK. How could you be found gulity of wrongful death when you were aquitted of murder? It makes no sense to me. Of course, the legal system often doesn't make sense.

He wasn't found guilty in a civil case per se. It was that the small jury felt that he was responsible for the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. So they told OJ to pay up. That, for now anyway, did not or does not constitute double jeopardy, after he was acquitted in the criminal case.

You raised a good point, PN. Nothing else makes much sense about that. So what happens if a guy kills someone, denying that he did it, and a jury believed him. After the acquittal, the guy confesses to actually killing the person, but he can never be retried. So he is taken to court again over a civil wrongful death lawsuit, and he loses this time.

What's a defense attorney suppose to do when he finds out that his client confesses to the killing after acquittal? Shake his head and apologize for his client?

pensacola_niceman · 04-29-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

He wasn't found guilty in a civil case per se. It was that the small jury felt that he was responsible for the death of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. So they told OJ to pay up. That, for now anyway, did not or does not constitute double jeopardy, after he was acquitted in the criminal case.

You raised a good point, PN. Nothing else makes much sense about that. So what happens if a guy kills someone, denying that he did it, and a jury believed him. After the acquittal, the guy confesses to actually killing the person, but he can never be retried. So he is taken to court again over a civil wrongful death lawsuit, and he loses this time.

What's a defense attorney suppose to do when he finds out that his client confesses to the killing after acquittal? Shake his head and apologize for his client?

I would call that double jeopardy. You are tried once and that's it. Please don't mistake that for me thinking that OJ was innocent. It's like if people don't like the verdict, they can force a civil trial on the same charge.

Here again, if OJ was found innocent of murder, how could he be guilty of "wrongful death" in yet another trial? I'm confused.

highway80west · 04-29-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

I would call that double jeopardy. You are tried once and that's it. Please don't mistake that for me thinking that OJ was innocent. It's like if people don't like the verdict, they can force a civil trial on the same charge.

Here again, if OJ was found innocent of murder, how could he be guilty of "wrongful death" in yet another trial? I'm confused.

Well, if you know of an attorney friend who specializes in criminal law, talk to him about it. I felt that Judge Ito was a weak judge, and he was manipulated by Cochran. The judge in the civil trial, last name is Fujisaki, never would have tolerated Cochran's demeanor. He was a no-nonsense judge. Too bad he wasn't the judge in the criminal trial, for that would have been held in Santa Monica instead of downtown L.A.

nuttyjoe · 04-29-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

OK. How could you be found gulity of wrongful death when you were aquitted of murder? It makes no sense to me. Of course, the legal system often doesn't make sense.

Easy. Wronful death can be anything that causes death unintentionally too. It is not a requirement to show and prove motive and intent of the defendant. There is no death penalty statue for wrongful death in this country, also.
To convict one of murder, the prosecution mush be able to prove motive, intent, and action of the defendant causing the death. This is mostly done with the medical examiner and/or coroner's Cause of Death Report corroborated by the police evidence linking the defendant to this action- all the while showing his motive and intent to cause the death of the victim
You could get in a vehicle accident today, and accidentally kill someone. It happens daily in America. You possibly can be charged with vehicular homicide; depending on the evidence. (DUI for example) You could face a civil trial for wrongful death and possibly sued for monetary damages.
However, you would never be charged with murder in a traffic accident; even though someone unfortunately died.