The Truth About The Original OJ Case

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
He was supposed to be acquitted. And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted. Because it was wrong to charge him with first degree murder. He committed second degree murder. (At the very end, the jury was instructed that they could in fact find him guilty of second degree, but I believe that even an unbiased jury would have trouble doing that when the prosecution case did not really admit that second degree murder was a reasonable alternative.)

Any other opinion is moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you the premise that OJ committed 2nd degree murder, since I don't have the offhand legal expertise to judge the difference between 1st and 2nd degree. Allow me to spell this out:

* OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The prosecution charged him with 1st degree murder, but it is perfectly within the court's legal power to nevertheless convict him of 2nd degree murder, and the jury knew this.

* Conclusion: OJ should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Any other conclusion (given these premises) is moronic. Mr. Sklansky, you are not making the slightest bit of sense.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll grant you the premise that OJ committed 2nd degree murder, since I don't have the offhand legal expertise to judge the difference between 1st and 2nd degree. Allow me to spell this out:

* OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The prosecution charged him with 1st degree murder, but it is perfectly within the court's legal power to nevertheless convict him of 2nd degree murder, and the jury knew this.

* Conclusion: OJ should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Any other conclusion (given these premises) is moronic. Mr. Sklansky, you are not making the slightest bit of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the one bit of fact that skansky is misinterpreting, is that the jury instructions only allowed for 1st degree or acquit, because the prosecution was so sure of a victory they didn't want the jury to have the option of 2nd degree because they might take it if the deliberations got long and settle on 2nd just to get out of there.

that's what I heard anyway, it was a long time ago but I think it is correct.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He was supposed to be acquitted. And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted. Because it was wrong to charge him with first degree murder. He committed second degree murder. (At the very end, the jury was instructed that they could in fact find him guilty of second degree, but I believe that even an unbiased jury would have trouble doing that when the prosecution case did not really admit that second degree murder was a reasonable alternative.)

Any other opinion is moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you the premise that OJ committed 2nd degree murder, since I don't have the offhand legal expertise to judge the difference between 1st and 2nd degree. Allow me to spell this out:

* OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The prosecution charged him with 1st degree murder, but it is perfectly within the court's legal power to nevertheless convict him of 2nd degree murder, and the jury knew this.

* Conclusion: OJ should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Any other conclusion (given these premises) is moronic. Mr. Sklansky, you are not making the slightest bit of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably should have been convicted of second degree murder. But there was a fight about whether to allow that option which the prosecutors won. Had they lost, my claim that he should have been acquited is clearly correct.

On the other hand I believe that you could make a case that even a fair jury would have been reluctant to convict a man of a crime that is much different than the one the prsecution was shooting for.

Meanwhile I worry about those posters who think it was probable that OJ planned the murders.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I worry about those posters who think it was probable that OJ planned the murders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would worry about anyone who would rely on Sklansky's legal expertise for anything.

Legal Definition of First Degree Murder
[ QUOTE ]
MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.

First-degree murder in California includes a killing that is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated," or that is committed in the perpetration, or attempt to perpetrate, certain felonies, including burglary, and not including the petty offense of shoplifting. Cal. Penal Code S 189.



[/ QUOTE ]

Legal Definition of Second Degree Murder
[ QUOTE ]
MURDER, SECOND DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of second degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated. Note that the elements are identical with those for 1st degree murder. The practical difference is the sentences are different. Which crime to charge is usually entirely up to the prosecutor's discretion.



[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Some further reading on the Legal Point of "premeditation".

In the case,

Commonwealth vs Carroll

The defendant killed his wife after an argument. On appeal he argued that it couldn't have been premeditated because there was not enough time for him to premeditate the killing. In ruling against his appeal the following opinions were given.

[ QUOTE ]
We find no merit in defendant's analogy or contention. As Chief Justice MAXEY appropriately and correctly said in Commonwealth v. Earnest. . . : "Whether the intention to kill and the killing, that is, the premeditation and the fatal act, were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, wilful, deliberate and premeditated. . . . As Justice AGNEW said in Com. v. Drum: 'The law fixes upon no length of time as necessary to form the intention to kill, but leaves the existence of a fully formed intent as a fact to be determined by the jury, from all the facts and circumstances in the evidence.'"


[/ QUOTE ]



PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

Once again everyone on this forum but you realizes that my point was that OJ's crime was not premeditated. You nitpick because I might have used the wrong term when I called it second degree murder. The point is that the specific crime he committed was some sort of crime of passion. So he shouldn't have been facing life in prison. And he almost certainly would have gotten much less than that if he plea bargained.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again everyone on this forum but you realizes that my point was that OJ's crime was not premeditated.

[/ QUOTE ]

whether it was in fact planned or not, the evidence was overwhelming that it was. I mean, who carries a big knife around? so the evidence was that he had a knife cause he planned to use it.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again everyone on this forum but you realizes that my point was that OJ's crime was not premeditated.

[/ QUOTE ]

whether it was in fact planned or not, the evidence was overwhelming that it was. I mean, who carries a big knife around? so the evidence was that he had a knife cause he planned to use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason he had a knife in his car. I can't even believe people are saying this. Even Marcia Clarke doesn't think he drove there to kill Nicole.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again everyone on this forum but you realizes that my point was that OJ's crime was not premeditated.

[/ QUOTE ]

whether it was in fact planned or not, the evidence was overwhelming that it was. I mean, who carries a big knife around? so the evidence was that he had a knife cause he planned to use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason he had a knife in his car. I can't even believe people are saying this. Even Marcia Clarke doesn't think he drove there to kill Nicole.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't have to in order to be found guilty of 1st degree murder.
You may quarrel with california law, but essentially it seems to say if you committed the act there are lots of ways for it to be considered 1st degree and therefore no reason to think OJ doesn't qualify to be found guilty under them and not acquitted under them. Now, under DS's version of califoria law, who knows.

luckyme

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason he had a knife in his car. I can't even believe people are saying this. Even Marcia Clarke doesn't think he drove there to kill Nicole.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying OJ went over and got into a heated argument, went back to his car, put on gloves, got his knife, and went back and killed? and that's not 1st?