deuce-ish: Something like that. OJ famously not guilty in criminal, but $$ liable.

deuce-ish
[ Post a Response | deuce-ish ]

Something like that. OJ famously not guilty in criminal, but $$ liable.

Posted by osklister

on May 13, 2026, 8:48:48, in reply to "I'm no lawyer but I belive you are only found liable in a civil case*"

Something like the jury couldn't say OJ was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" in the criminal trial with famous lawyers (Johnny Cochran, F Lee Bailey) but the "preponderance of evidence" in the later civil trial held that OJ was responsible.

Legal beagles are welcome to correct that. :-O

32

This dipshit is a lawyer - AceFrehley May 12, 2026, 18:14:29

He continues to be pathetic.* - Lexillini May 13, 2026, 7:42:35
Jury found him guilty of "sexual abuse", right?* - Potomac May 12, 2026, 18:31:43
- That was a ridiculous lawsuit. Craziest plaintiff ever* - DouchieHowser May 12, 2026, 20:21:37
  - She didn't remember many huge details of the case - AceFrehley May 12, 2026, 20:48:30
- No. Wasn't found guilty of anything. Guilty is a criminal term - AceFrehley May 12, 2026, 20:05:33
- I'm no lawyer but I belive you are only found liable in a civil case* - Xar May 12, 2026, 19:40:12
  - Something like that. OJ famously not guilty in criminal, but $$ liable. - osklister May 13, 2026, 8:48:48

« Back to index | View thread »

Post a Response