The Truth About The Original OJ Case

[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?

[PairTheBoard]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

What everyone on this forum realizes is that you don't know much about the Law. You evidently didn't read my next post giving some legal opinions on the legal concept of "premeditation".

This in ruling against the Murder's appeal in Commonwealth vs Carroll.


[ 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]

To the three of you I say this:

It is obvious that OJ didn't drive to Nicole's house to kill her. Seeing Goldman put him into a state of rage. And murdering someone in that state is not generally accepted by the public as deserving of conviction of a crime that carries the sentence of life without parole. Regardless of the technical names for this. And I believe his attorneys had the same opinion.

I also am pretty sure that the prosecutors would have accepted a much lessor sentence, ten years or so, if he had plea bargained. And they were trying to punish him for declining. And if true, that was also a reason for the attorneys to feel no qualms in defending him. (See my new thread on plea bargains.)

Finally I think it is quite possible that the poster who speculated that the defense attorneys were outraged because evidence was planted might be right. In fact Lestat could easily be wrong about Johnny Cochrane. He might not always want to hear the truth but in this case I wouldn't be surprised if he KNEW the glove was planted because OJ told him that he dropped both gloves at the scene. Most defense attorneys I know consider that planting of evidence all the excuse they needed to ethically allow them to acquit Ted Bundy.

[bluesbassman]

[ 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 ]

This might be true, but from that it doesn't follow it was a crime of passion. Do you see why?

Context is important here. What was OJ doing at Nicole's house (apparently unannounced I believe) in the first place? I don't think he had any business being there, and if he subsequently becomes enraged, for whatever reason upon seeing her, then that situation is NOT legitimately a "crime of passion," regardless of whether he had planned in advance to murder her that evening. Not to mention he also murdered Mr. Goldman.

A crime of passion occurs (for example) when a domestic dispute escalates, or perhaps if a man comes home early to find his wife in bed with another man. In the OJ case, there was no "reasonable" reason for him to be at Nicole's house, nor to become enraged at her or Mr. Goldman, so the "crime of passion" consideration does not apply.

Seems to me 1st degree murder was an entirely appropriate charge in this case, regardless of OJ's supposed original intent.