Why was OJ found innocent?
969029
Because he had decent lawyers (although many criminal defense attorneys don't really think that OJ really had the best attorneys he could have had), the DAs were kind of bad, sometimes you get lucky with a jury, the cops weren't so good, and the evidence wasn't really that damning. Most crimes are solved by a search in which a smoking gun is found or by confession. You didn't have any of these in the OJ trial. We just had circumstantial evidence here. Even the bloody glove was circumstantial. And then the law tells us that, if there are two reasonable explanations, one pointing to innocence and the other pointing to guilty, the jury must pick the one pointing to innocence. If one is more reasonable than the other, that's too bad. In this case, it was reasonable to the jury that the glove was planted by a racist cop who had major problems. Otherwise, there was nothing else (except that slow car chase that showed his guilty, but the DAs didn't harp on this).\n\nYou see, DAs are used to winning all the time and it goes to their head. They assume that the jury will just take the DA's word for it and move on. But there were a lot of blacks on the jury and blacks know that cops sometimes lie. It's not unreasonable to them. As such, it was reasonable to them that OJ was framed and there wasn't really that much direct evidence that couldn't have been tainted by the cops. So, they hung their hat on that. If cops wouldn't lie, people might believe them when they were telling the truth more often. Of course, most people do and that makes the cops less inclined to change their ways. But once in a while, they get burned.\n\nBut don't worry. OJ angered so many people that it is now much easier to convict someone so lots of other people with no money and some with money who otherwise may not have been convicted have been convicted.
165822
1. I think the police rarely lie in court, unless they are on trial themselves..  They are trained to spew facts.\n\n2. I think O.J.'s defense attorneys used trick tactics to make it appear that the police were lying.  Remember, this was the best defense team money could buy, and he paid them to tie up the court and confuse the jury into an acquittal.
891126
how do you know he is innocent?
402048
he was fuond guilty in court.
973420
Repuglicans are all about making a buck, that is why they also over look the corruption and perversion in their party. If somebody can make a few bucks glory to them. This is one democrat that does not think that OJ is innocent. But the jury thought that the prosecutor didn't prove the case and that is really all that matters.
568314
I was in California when this happen, and in my family are cops. Lets look at the at all this. Her head was almost decapitated (took time)- what just would be robber would do this?. Yet alone her friend. No this was a crime of passion. Than we see OJ on TV running (in car)-before everything was out-why was he running? And the glove with blood found. (now we get a glove expert-wonder where do you find that). His time is not account for in many ways. He has already shown violent to Nicole. The dog does nothing. He was at her home-but didn't go in (uh)? Some much I could included-fact is anywhere else this would be enough. Money talks! Funny he even claims broke-but lives a great lifestyle (tell me how please). I don't think the cops lied as much as were put in positions and smart butt lawyers twisted every word. Furman tried to cover his racist remark-but hey what does his  stupid attitude got to do with OJ killing his wife. Even many of the jury say if they were allowed (can you believe we hold back for silly reasons) all the evedence some would have changed. But I will tell you that almost decapping of Nicole s's head is enough for me. No one (robber-thief-killer_) would take the time-this was someone who had personal feelings to the max.\n\nCops didn't do well-but I think other issues played more in his freedom-they played the race card-and money has a voice of its own.
734816
Double jeopardy only applies to crimes he has already been put on trial for. He cannot be tried again for murder, but he can be tried for lying about it, and possibly hindering an investigation.\nHe can only be kept from making a profit IF that was a part of the agreement from the trial.  Lots of people in prison, especially people on death row, write their memoirs and sell it to a publisher.\nThe contents of the book can't necessarily be used to prove he did it. Since he was the defendant in the trial, he was given access to all the police's findings, which could explain how he knows the details. Unless he blatantly comes out and confesses, or if the police find more evidence, he is still presumed innocent.\nBlue Steel and Lace is right. The Brown and Goldman families have been fighting for more of the police reports to be released to the public, and they've been trying to keep OJ from being able to make a profit.\nOur constitution is very lenient toward defendants. And there aren't many laws about what happens after a trial. Like I said before, unless a judge issues some type of gag order, there are no laws keeping OJ from talking about it.\nI think Rupert Murdoch did the right thing by cancelling the deal. I personally think that every time OJ appears on TV, the Brown and Goldman families ought to get an equal segment right behind him.
693678
It would depend on the individual case. If the police and/or prosecution had planted evidence or hid evidence that would have proved someones innocence, then deliberately and knowingly prosecuted an innocent man, then yes, under those circumstances I feel both criminal and civil charges should be brought against the "People". But unfortunately our law system is not perfect and even when everything is done by the book, sometimes an innocent person is found guilty of a crime that they did not commit. In those cases you cannot blame the prosecution or law enforcement, and it would be unfair to penalize them.
134830
You are asking two questions. Guilty? \n\nHe is innocent at the moment until proved guilty, which the court will decide on the evidence presented.\n\nDoes he deserve to be on trial? Yes, from what has been reported. But I have no first hand knowledge.
961887
Because O.J. Simpleton is the murderer.
225061
The evidence against OJ was overwhelming. There is no doubt in my mind that he is guilty of a double murder.
166524
It means the court found the person innocent of the charges.
875334
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. He'd get to have his day in court.
913727
He WILL be hung, or shot, or whatever way they choose to go about killing him.  An automatic appeal might matter in other cases, but who honestly believes he will be found innocent?  LOL!  I think everyone was happy when they caught him, because we all knew he would pay.  It's no surprise to me that he was found guilty.
284500
oj getting off for murdering nicole/goldman
861323
No, he's not-guilty in the eyes of the law. Civil court is just that; they found that it's more than likely that he is liable financially for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Criminally he is forever not guilty (not the same as innocent).
161394
Of course it played a factor. Race permeates our society, and is particularly noticeable when it comes to criminal trials. One of the main factors was how different is the experience with police in the black vs. white cultural history. Many blacks have experienced what they believe to be police misconduct (remember the history of lynchings and kangaroo courts in the 20s and 30s), and thus find it easy to believe that OJ was framed. Whites tend to see the police as honest and credible, and therefore don't question the evidence.\nIf you don't trust the police & the D.A.'s office to honestly collect, analyze, and present evidence, then it's easy to vote "not guilty." If you cannot believe the police would fake evidence, then the "not guilty" decision seems to be an outrage.