O. J. Booted

O.J.Simpson booted from a KY steakhouse.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18562630/

Ed

 

FTR, O.J. was found "Not guilty" by a jury of his peers (He was not found 'innocent', for that is not a jury verdict, but the standing of anyone whether or not accused of any crime.) in the criminal case, and found to be 'responsible for wrongful death' in the civil case.

I've always thought that one should be able to serve or not serve who one pleases in his or her private establishment, so I'll applaud that, without passing judgment on anyone as to any 'guilt'. I merely saw this as a "news/current events" item, and posted it.

Ed

 

I disagree with this, completely. Our American system under the Constitution states the following:

This is the basis for 'criminal proceedings'. I have served (including as foreman) on both a trial (petit) jury and grand jury. I think I know a bit about the procedures involved.

An "indictment" (known as "a true bill") is based (at least in KY) on whether there is enough evidence to the charges, presented by the Commonwealth atttorney and with some, but not necessarily all, witnesses called, to warrant a criminal trial in the opinion of 9 of 12 jurors. If that answer is "Yes.", the case then moves toward a trial. If the answer is "Yes", in the opinion of fewer than the 9 of 12 (or "No" in the opinion of four or more of the twelve), the charges are dropped, and the 'case' is reported out as "not a true bill", with no further action at the time.

The petit jury is somewhat different. In a criminal trial (at least in KY), a jury must reach one of three possible unanimous verdicts. (Anything less than a unanimous verdict results in a "hung jury", hence "no verdict", and the case is reevaluated and usually considered by another jury, but sometimes is dismissed by the state.) Those verdicts are "Not guilty!"; (occasionally) "Guilty, but mentally ill!"; and "Guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt!". There is no such verdict as (unfortunately too often stated), "Guilty, beyond all doubt!", or "Guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt!" In every 'criminal' case, on which I have personally served, I had two, and only two choices as a juror - that of finding someone "Not guilty!" or finding him or her "Guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt!". There is, fortuantely, no such verdict as "I know someone is guilty, I just can't prove it!" I hate to see such judgments offered by anyone, FTR, as I am seeing here on this thread. Also fortunately, I never have had to consider the question of 'sanity', which would have introduced another variable and opinion into the questions of fact.

Civil proceedings are another matter. The "standard of proof", is far less. It is the "preponderance of the evidence" in the opinion of 9 of 12. And any penalties are also less. Criminal conviction can and does extend to imprisonment and jeopardy of life or limb. (Amendment V) Civil penalties are far less, and do not include the above, but may include monetary judgments. They are and should be different, as per the Constitution, and also, IMO.



Ed

 

With all due respect, I hope I never am in any criminal proceeding and have you on the jury. You might read my above post. And I disagree that " The whole world knows it." That obviously was not the case, given the verdict in the criminal case. No real or substantive allegation or mention of wrongdoing, wrongful conclusion, or malfeasance on the part of the juries, was presented in either of the jury verdicts, to my knowledge.

I do happen to agree with both verdicts, from what I was able to ascertain in the O.J.Simpson cases. "Not guilty!", as per my above post, in the 'criminal case', And, yes, responsible for the "wrongful death", in the civil case. Those are the exact same verdicts I would have agreed to, based on what I understand, had I been on either of the juries, again as per the above post, and as one who has served more than once, BTW, as a petit juror, including as a jury foreman, and that more than once, as well.

Ed