Why was OJ Simpson murder charges acquitted in criminal court?

Answer 1

That's what everybody wants to know. The physical and circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. This was a prosecutor's dream that quickly turned into a nightmare. I think a general explaination would have to be that Marcia Clark and her team for the prosecution were just 'out-lawyered'.

I believe the trial was lost with the change of venue. The trial was moved to downtown LA instead of where the crime was committed. The jury pool was very different than in Brentwood, an affluent mostly white neighborhood. Bailey may not be the best attorney but he can pick a jury.

A contributing factor was the judge, Ito. The thinking was to put an Asian judge in so neither side could scream predjudice. I felt Ito leaned heavily to the defense.

And lastly, the defense turned this trial into a color match. This crime was not about color, his or hers, it was about an abusive husband that got away with murder. Mark Furman was just a scapegoat. The possibilty that the whole investigating team would be in on a frame-up. The idea is rediculous, and it's hard to believe that 12 intelligent people could have fallen for such a cheap tactic.

Answer: It was said that they had reasonable doubt, so he was acquitted.

Answer 2

In a criminal trial the burden of proof falls to the prosecution. They must <i>prove</i> guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial the jury has to be reasonably certain (for lack of better word) that the defendent is guilty. In simpler terms, it takes much less to prove guilt in a civil trial. This makes sense, most civil trials are about money. In the OJ Simpson civil trial the jury found him responsible for two deaths which caused great suffering of the Browns and Goldmans. But of course both familys only cared about money. A small amount of which was donated for charity.