O.J. Simpson ordered to surrender earnings

AP ^ | Monday, February 23, 2004

[cateizgr8]

BRIDGETON, Missouri (AP) -- O.J. Simpson has been ordered to hand over any earnings from a private autograph-signing event to the mother of Ronald Goldman because of a civil verdict that found Simpson liable for his slaying.

Simpson, served with the court papers Saturday before he left the St. Louis suburb of Bridgeton, suggested he would not pay anything to Ronald Goldman's mother, Sharon Rufo.

[Dr.Deth]

Be that as it may, I'm still troubled by the entire civil proceeding and the verdict. To me, going into the tort court and showing your "not guilty" verdict by a jury of peers should be sufficient to end things right then and there.

It may have been a wrong verdict. It may have been a result of the race card. Yet, to me, something's not quite right here. What if you were accused of a crime, found innocent, then sued and forced to give all your earnings for the rest of your life to the accuser? You might say, well, it's justice for OJ, but would it be justice for you?

I'm always on the lookout for the first step of a slippery slope, because you can always count on the Unintended Consequences. Something in the way the whole OJ saga played out tells me this country is now "Of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers."

[pax_et_bonum]

When I first read this I thought it was an order to surrender his earrings.

Me, too! You beat me to it.

[atomicpossum]

Wow, I heard about this on the local news, but didn't realize it was happening. Bridgeton is basically right-next-door to me.

Oh, and OJ's a BIG FAT MURDERER. Period.

[FoxInSocks]

Be that as it may, I'm still troubled by the entire civil proceeding and the verdict. To me, going into the tort court and showing your "not guilty" verdict by a jury of peers should be sufficient to end things right then and there.

Burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Not guilty does not equal innocent.

Burden of proof in a civil case is a "preponderance of the evidence," or more likely than not.

[ibbryn]

"They" weren't afraid of anything. The jury was racist and was sending a message.
I swear, on the life of everyone whom I love, that a black male juror flashed a black power sign (raised, clenched fist) to OJ after the verdict was read. I saw this live on the news (you will NEVER see it, unless a freeper-type has it on tape).

Civil trials have a different standard of proof than criminal. Criminal trials require all jurors to believe, beyond a reasonble doubt, the accused is guilty. Civil trials require a majority of the jurors to believe a perponderence of evidence shows the accused is liable - a much lower standard that is confusing, but still valid.

[PJ-Comix]

Randi Rhodes must be outraged. She still thinks OJ is innocent.

[ibbryn]

Yeah, what you said.

[the invisib1e hand]

it was unspoken, yet understood, that if Simpson were convicted, there would be mayhem in the form of riots. The case came just on the tail of the Rodney King riots.

[Richard Kimball]

One of the alternate jurors, when asked if they had found OJ not guilty because he was black said, "So what if we did?"

[international american]

If Simpson had been tried in Santa Monica, he would have been tried in front of a jury of his peers(rich white people). It was moved downtown where the jurors would be 90%
minorities, many not well educated. They could give a damn about the rules of evidence, or truth;neither did that jackass Ito, who let the defence run roughshod over the trial.

[international american]

Another said "That man too pretty to spend the rest of his life in jail"

[Dr.Deth]

I understand how the concept. I'm saying that it smacks faintly of double jeopardy to be subject to tort litigation following that verdict. Owing to the gravity of the original proceeding, it really should indemnify one to followup suits like this. It's a wide door to harassment litigation.

It may be perceived as 'justice' in the OJ instance... but what about the next one?

[FoxInSocks]

It's really two different cases, even though they arise out of the same incident.

A criminal case was brought by the State (California, in this case) against O.J. Simpson for violating a criminal statute.

A civil case was brought by those who were wronged, or on their behalf, to seek compensation for their damages. The Browns and Goldmans weren't represented in the criminal trial, and didn't have an opportunity to put on evidence.

Or something like that.