To me this seemed to be a form of double-jeopardy. If you can't get the person for the crime, then get a jury to retry the case as a civil violation.
Then there is also now a form of triple-jeopardy where they can get you for somehow violating someone's civil rights. So maybe you're technically innocent of killing someone, but you can be found guilty of violating their constitutional right to life.
No matter that we are all certain that OJ killed Nicole, and no matter how much we wish he had been executed or at least drained of all his money, this is the sort of thing that is now used regularly against anyone who defies the Deep State.
Step One: Try the person for a crime he didn't commit.
Step Two: Try the person for violating some obscure reading of the Constitution or Title IX
Step Three: Sue the person for vaguely defined damages
I believe that the hatred for OJ has boomeranged on us and is now aimed at us.
Huh? Wrongful death causes of action have always been available. It’s not a matter of unanimity of the jury; it’s the standard of proof. Criminal cases are beyond a Reasonable doubt and civil are preponderance of the evidence. And double jeopardy is defined in the Constitution: it’s being tried twice for the same crime. Civil actions are not criminal actions. I think OJ did it beyond a reasonable doubt, but it can’t be reasonably asserted that the killing could be shown by the preponderance of the evidence as as to support a civil judgment
This is not the case in the United States where the burden of proof in a civil case is less than the burden in a criminal case.
I like your analysis.
Two things though:
-The lawyers are was is driving this.
-OJ is/was black.
There were two trials. The DA trial snd the civil case. Happens as a matter of course.