Goodwin guilty in Mickey Thompson murder (1 Viewer)

[Nitromike]

Great News!!

 

[john]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt."

"Reasonable" seems to be the variable term here like I see included in almost every legal phrase I've ever seen.

But the word "beyond" doesn't have ANY variable to it. That seems to make it beyond any variation of any doubt, doesn't it? That sounds like "I'm convinced in legal terms".

Jurors by nature take the job very seriously and don't convict unless convinced.... these 12 were convinced.
The Judge would be obligated to vacate the verdict if he believed there was no evidence to support it. That is one of the reasons he's there, he didn't so he must be convinced too.

 

[Nitrohaulic]

Yeah, but reasonable throws the wrench in it. Who gets to say what is or is not "reasonable"? Once you do that, the sentence means anything you want it to.

An example of what I said above is on this page.

Jim Blasingame : The Small Business Advocate

The government and I could take the same person and, with every one of those rules, they could say they're an employee and I could say they're a contractor. My question would be "Who gets to be unusual, abnormal, not typical, and on what day?"

Yeah, this and O.J are good comparisons and examples of what is reasonable evidence one day and not on another.

 

[john]

Ron, you make a great point, but you are missing one thing. In the US of A the only thing above the law is the IRS, you should know that by now!

 

[Jake]

OJ got off for ONE REASON, **** MONEY **** He is guilty as the day is long!! Granted, the prosecution screwed some thing up but not enough to let him go free in my opinion.
If he was not a former NFL star and had only "average" wealth, he would be sitting in an 8x8 right now or on California's death row, which is the same thing as a life sentence cause most of them die in prison before their execution order comes through.

 

[Nitrohaulic]

Just as you could say that the only reason the person convicted of being guilty of murdering the Thompsons was due to money and connections.

What would have happened to average Joes in either case? The opposite outcome, I bet. One turned loose would be in and one convicted would be walking the streets.

 

[megadeth]

Sorry Joe, our legal system is not corrupt. It works today exactly as the founding fathers intended it to work.

It is the prosecutor's job to prove a case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. People called the system faulty after the O.J. verdict, with all kinds of calls for 'reform' of the legal system. Did anything change? No, not one thing. After the hysteria died down, most thinking people understood that the prosecution failed to prove it's case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. And a high school kid could see that if they tuned in to even a small part of the televised procedings.

Benjamin Franklin believed “For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

The Thompson issue is on the other side of the spectrum from O.J.'s Apparently the prosecution did it's job, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the circumstantial evidence was enough to convict.

Like how Scott Peterson was convicted and sentenced to death on nothing but circumstantial evidence.
He could very well be guilty but to sentence him to death without hard evidence that makes you wonder.

As far as Mr. Thompson’s case better late than never and I'm happy for his surviving family members they can close that horrible chapter of their lives.

The problem I have with Old Benji's statement is over all the years I wonder what that # is now.
It's thousands more than that 1 you can bank on that!!!

 

[None]

stop the freakin presses I agree with Jackee.

the prosecution of the OJ case was pitiful. I often wondered if they intentionally lost that case, for whatever sick reason. I can't imagine they were actually that incompetent.

a detective walking around with evidence in his pocket . a female prosecuter who couldn't work late because she didn't have a babysitter(even though the kids could have been with her ex)
as a divorced dad I 'll never forget that one.
bitch.
it was a mess of a trial.....

A black jury was not going to convict a black sports hero regardless of the screwups. There was still overwhelming evidence above and beyond the hiccups and it wasn't going to happen.

 

[ProStockJunkie]

A black jury was not going to convict a black sports hero regardless of the screwups. There was still overwhelming evidence above and beyond the hiccups and it wasn't going to happen.

I know that to some folks, everything has to have a racial spin to it. I watched nearly the whole trial. Way before the 'bloody glove', I saw many 'errors' on the part of the prosecution.

Black jury, white jury, green jury be darned. The prosecution failed miserably more then once, in this high profile trial. Period.

I'm sure the OJ trial has been used in many Law Schools as an example of how not to present your case against a defendant... regardless of who he or she may be, or the make up of the jury.

The prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and parties get to pick who will serve on their jury. The process is called "voir dire"

Voir Dire

"[Old French, To speak the truth.] The preliminary examination of prospective jurors to determine their qualifications and suitability to serve on a jury, in order to ensure the selection of fair and impartial jury.

Voir dire consists of oral questions asked of prospective jurors by the judge, the parties, or the attorneys, or some combination thereof. This oral questioning, often supplemented by a prior written questionnaire, is used to determine whether a potential juror is biased, knows any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses, or should otherwise be excluded from jury duty. Voir dire is a tool used to achieve the constitutional right to an impartial jury, but it is not a constitutional right in itself.

Typically, a number of prospective jurors are called to the jury box, given an oath, and then questioned as a group by counsel or the court. Local federal rules generally provide for questioning by the judge. Individual or sequestered voir dire is used in rare cases where extensive publicity may potentially damage a defendant's case; some jurisdictions mandate it in death penalty cases. A prospective juror must answer questions fully and truthfully but cannot be faulted for failing to disclose information that was not sought.

The purpose of voir dire is not to educate jurors but to enable the parties to select an impartial panel. Therefore, voir dire questions should test the capacity and competency of the jurors without intentionally or unintentionally planting prejudicial matter in their minds. Trial judges have wide latitude in setting the parameters of questioning, including the abilities to determine the materiality and propriety of the questions and to set the time allowed for voir dire.

A party may move for dismissal for cause to remove any potential juror shown to be connected to or biased in the case. A court may sustain counsel's request to strike a juror for cause, in which case the juror steps aside and another is called. Or a judge may overrule a challenge for cause if a suitable reason has not been sufficiently established. Challenges for cause are not limited in number.

Each side also exercises peremptory challenges to further shape the composition of the jury. Peremptory challenges are used to dismiss a prospective juror without the need to provide a reason for dismissal. Statutes or court rules typically set the number of peremptory challenges afforded to a party."

Soooooo, if the Prosecution failed to secure an unbiased jury based on race, fame or ANY OTHER REASON, it is still a mark against the Prosecution.

Like the outcome or not, the OJ case was probably the first time the majority of Americans got a chance to see the legal system in action. The Legal Justice system worked exactly as it was intended to work, in the OJ Simpson case. The Prosecution failed to prove its case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.