I really don't think a conviction necessarily proves anything either way. There can be false convictions just as well as someone being falsely let go too.
The public isn't necessarily held to the same standards that the justice system is held.
We are discussing a suit here - we should be using the standards of the justice system.
Regardless, your point is not valid. What information do you have to support your claim that they are murderers?
We are discussing a suit here - we should be using the standards of the justice system.
It's a civil suit. That's a little different.
Quote:
Regardless, your point is not valid. What information do you have to support your claim that they are murderers?
That's not the problem. I didn't say they were, at least I don't remember saying that. Are you saying that the producers of the show don't have such information? Challenge them, not me.
The two men are now seeking punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial, a preliminary injunction barring the rebroadcast or sale of the episode during the pendency of the lawsuit, and a permanent injunction and restraining order barring any future rebroadcast or sale by Viacom, BET and Apple.
I can understand including Apple for the injunction, but I certainly hope they don't seek money from them as they are just a conduit.
Hello, is anybody home? If a person has not been convicted of murder, you cannot call him a murderer. If your accusation is printed, your have committed the time honored tort of libel. That has been the case since our Country's ancestors were English.
It is simply irrelevant if the plaintiffs here were convicted with a misdemeanor (which by definition is a non serious crime) or were arrested or charged with a felony. Under the law, all that is relevant is whether they were convicted of the crime of murder. If they have not been, you cannot publicly call them murderers.
By the way, there is a difference between saying you think they committed murder, and claiming they actually did commit murder. One will get you in trouble, the other will not.
I haven't read the Complaint, but it seems like an open and shut case for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhill
Clearly Viacom is responsible for this, not Apple.
What is our world coming to when the courts are full of lawsuits brought by criminals. Notice that the articles mentions that the two have never been convicted of any felonies, let alone murder. It didn't mention misdemeanors, arrests for felonies, associations with felons. I'm sure that the two mentioned are model citizens.
What happen to this country's backbone. We are sitting here passively while the criminals take over our country. Remember what made this country great? Let's get back to that!!!
Well, you are on the right track. The legal system has different standards of proof depending on what is at issue. In a criminal trial where your freedom is at issue, the highest standard of proof is used: namely beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial the standard of proof is the lowest: namely the preponderance of evidence. That means the probability that the person is liable for what he is being sued for is greater then 50%. Sometimes in civil matters, the standard is called clear and convincing evidence. That falls between the other two standards. For what it is worth, lawyers, much less juries really do not understand the difference between the three.
In OJ's criminal trial, the jury found the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty of murder. The Brown and Goldmun families then sued him for "wrongful" death in a civil court. The jury there found that the plaintiff's proved that it was more probable then not that OJ was liable for the wrongful death of the deceased.
Personally, I think OJ killed those two people. However, I think the jury came to the right decision in the criminal trial. There certainly was reasonable doubt. It is better to let a guilty person walk free then send an innocent person to jail. What is sad is that only rich people in our country can afford to have a fair trial. OJ spend millions on hiring the best forensic experts who were able to analyze and explain to the jury the evidence against him. He spend millions more on the best lawyers who could spend the needed time to properly prepare a murder trial. Usually the government has all the resources and those accused with murder have little to none. Most criminal lawyers are juggling many cases around at once, and a murder trial goes on for at most a week. OJ's lawyers worked only on his case, and the trial went on for over a month.
Moreover, the government often cheats to get convictions. For instance, in a mistrial the government will go and interview jurors to find out why some of the jury didn't want to convict. They then will cater the defendant's next trial to address those juries concerns. In addition, the government will charge a person with as many charges as possible for what is essentially the same crime. The result is a person is facing 50 years in jail. The prosecution then says if you plead guilty to this one crime, you'll only face 1 to 5 years. Considering that your fate as a defendant rests in the hands of a jury of people prone to prejudices, many people are going to admit to a less severe crime even if they are innocent.
Finally, the rules of evidence are mostly geared towards the prosecution's advantage and often are influenced by politics. Take for instance a man charged with rape. Say the accuser has a history of lying, stealing, and sleeping with tons of men. The man is respectable and has a clean record. The accuser claims he raped her and he claims the sex was consensual. All you really have in such a case is the man's word against the woman's word because all the physical evidence will show is that sex took place and that isn't at issue in this case. Yet, the man cannot bring up the woman's past history or his good behavior to show the jury the character of the two people.
So at the end of the day all the jury has to look at is crying woman's testimony and the man's testimony. If the woman lies, she probably will not face any jail time. If the guy is convicted he can go to jail for life. Most men are going to take a deal in such cases. If you are rich like Kobe, you will pay the accuser off so the charges will be dropped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celemourn
Not exactly. Criminal court decides if he committed murder or not. Civil court can only determine if he was responsible for their deaths, however that may have occurred. The civil judgement for wrongful death only says that he was responsible, not that he personally did it. It would be like a CEO refusing to replace a faulty piece of equipment, which then broke and killed someone. The CEO might be found responsible for 'wrongful death'. Or I think that's how it goes. Someone please correct my errors.
I didn't realize, in the US, people were guilty until proven innocent. Silly me, I thought it was the other way around.
Criminally, in a criminal court, yes. That is far different than civilly or in open society. There are no "innocent until proven guilty" protections outside the criminal arena. There is a far different, and much lower, standard for determining that someone has done something in a civil setting, compared to the standard that is evidentially and procedurally required to put someone in jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TerrinB
Hello, is anybody home? If a person has not been convicted of murder, you cannot call him a murderer. If your accusation is printed, your have committed the time honored tort of libel. That has been the case since our Country's ancestors were English.
Ummm. Yes you can and it is done routinely. OJ is not convicted of murder, but he was sued in civil court for the act and was found responsible. He has been referred to as a murderer multiple times and sued the Brown's for libel and lost because civilly he was found to have committed the act even though procedural issues prevented his criminal conviction.
Things that made this country great? You mean like genocide, slavery, and racism, right? You go boy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhill
What happen to this country's backbone. We are sitting here passively while the criminals take over our country. Remember what made this country great? Let's get back to that!!!
Ummm. Yes you can and it is done routinely. OJ is not convicted of murder, but he was sued in civil court for the act and was found responsible. He has been referred to as a murderer multiple times and sued the Brown's for libel and lost because civilly he was found to have committed the act even though procedural issues prevented his criminal conviction.
It is clear you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I practiced criminal law as a prosecutor for over a year, so I do happen to know a little bit about what I am talking about.
The prosecution in the OJ case failed to prove OJ was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt like it was required to do to obtain a conviction. That is not a procedural issue. It is simply a failure of the prosecution to successfully make its case. Moreover, OJ was not sued in civil court for murder, which is a criminal charge requiring intent. He was sued in civil court for wrongful death, which is something entirely different. A wrongful death claim doesn't involve intent and often is more akin to negligence.
So when you say somebody is a murderer you are saying he or she intended to kill a person without a legally acceptable excuse (e.g. self defense). If a person was found liable for wrongful death of another person, but was not found guilty of murder, you likely cannot get away with legally calling him or her a murderer. If you do so, that is libel or slander.
It is libel or slander because to defend yourself from a libel or slander case you likely will have to prove the person is a murderer. In the OJ case, you cannot do that because a jury found him not guilty. On the other hand, OJ would be able to prove he wasn't guilty of the murder of Nicole and Ron because a jury found him not guilty. The wrongful death case doesn't prove OJ was a murderer, only that he was responsible for their death, which as I already said is something entirely different.
Although I am not positive, I think you are mistaken about OJ suing the Browns for libel.
A person can state their opinion that a criminal is guilty of murder. But any official news or television show should know they need to put the word "alleged" when talking about a criminal who is not yet convicted.
My sister was murdered by her husband. This is my opinion. However, the state happens to agree with me and will be able to prove it. However, any media still have to fit the word "allegedly" in there somewhere in their story.
We have waited 9 years to finally go to trial this coming January. oursisterjulie.com
A person can state their opinion that a criminal is guilty of murder. But any official news or television show should know they need to put the word "alleged" when talking about a criminal who is not yet convicted.
My sister was murdered by her husband. This is my opinion. However, the state happens to agree with me and will be able to prove it. However, any media still have to fit the word "allegedly" in there somewhere in their story.
We have waited 9 years to final go to trial this coming January. oursisterjulie.com
It is clear you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I practiced criminal law as a prosecutor for over a year, so I do happen to know a little bit about what I am talking about.
For a year. Wow. And you think that qualifies you to pass judgment on the standard of evidence that applies in a civil court? I think not. Your point is meaningless since you seem to have no grasp on the wonderful mushiness of civil proceedings and that short year in the criminal court does you more harm than good.
For a year. Wow. And you think that qualifies you to pass judgment on the standard of evidence that applies in a civil court? I think not. Your point is meaningless since you seem to have no grasp on the wonderful mushiness of civil proceedings and that short year in the criminal court does you more harm than good.
And what exactly are your qualifications for disputing TerrinB? From your argument "style" I'm guessing it's not any kind of background, degree, or certification related to the practice of law. Or are you a practicing attorney that stands before the judge and says "No and no," and then sits down?
Mel if we both looked up at a blue sky at the same time and in the same place, you would say it's purple. You just run roughshod over any sensible argument that doesn't meet your personal approval. Frankly I don't care to argue with you because that isn't possible because you think you are always right. If I'm wrong at least I'll admit it.
And what exactly are your qualifications for disputing TerrinB? From your argument "style" I'm guessing it's not any kind of background, degree, or certification related to the practice of law. Or are you a practicing attorney that stands before the judge and says "No and no," and then sits down?
<looks around> <See courtroom?> No. <sits down>
Dude, you don't have to be a lawyer or have a certification. I'm not and don't. Have you been involved with a civil case that had a failed criminal aspect? How many hours consultation on top of retainer hours does it take to become intimately familiar with a situation like this. Not many, and it is far more common than you think. [the hours are necessary for the details, not the governing principles]
I couldn't give a rat's ass about certifications, I value primary source information and sound advice much more highly. I have found not all lawyers are created equal, and first impression of citing irrelevant experience is not a great indication of potential success. It also helps to sleep with a paralegal that does all the attorney's case research. If you don't like my answer fine, you don't have to.
Comments
I really don't think a conviction necessarily proves anything either way. There can be false convictions just as well as someone being falsely let go too.
The public isn't necessarily held to the same standards that the justice system is held.
We are discussing a suit here - we should be using the standards of the justice system.
Regardless, your point is not valid. What information do you have to support your claim that they are murderers?
We are discussing a suit here - we should be using the standards of the justice system.
It's a civil suit. That's a little different.
Regardless, your point is not valid. What information do you have to support your claim that they are murderers?
That's not the problem. I didn't say they were, at least I don't remember saying that. Are you saying that the producers of the show don't have such information? Challenge them, not me.
The two men are now seeking punitive damages in the amount to be determined at trial, a preliminary injunction barring the rebroadcast or sale of the episode during the pendency of the lawsuit, and a permanent injunction and restraining order barring any future rebroadcast or sale by Viacom, BET and Apple.
I can understand including Apple for the injunction, but I certainly hope they don't seek money from them as they are just a conduit.
It is simply irrelevant if the plaintiffs here were convicted with a misdemeanor (which by definition is a non serious crime) or were arrested or charged with a felony. Under the law, all that is relevant is whether they were convicted of the crime of murder. If they have not been, you cannot publicly call them murderers.
By the way, there is a difference between saying you think they committed murder, and claiming they actually did commit murder. One will get you in trouble, the other will not.
I haven't read the Complaint, but it seems like an open and shut case for me.
Clearly Viacom is responsible for this, not Apple.
What is our world coming to when the courts are full of lawsuits brought by criminals. Notice that the articles mentions that the two have never been convicted of any felonies, let alone murder. It didn't mention misdemeanors, arrests for felonies, associations with felons. I'm sure that the two mentioned are model citizens.
What happen to this country's backbone. We are sitting here passively while the criminals take over our country. Remember what made this country great? Let's get back to that!!!
Suing iTunes? Well that means they need to add on all the cable and satellite companies that carry BET.
-Owl
In OJ's criminal trial, the jury found the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty of murder. The Brown and Goldmun families then sued him for "wrongful" death in a civil court. The jury there found that the plaintiff's proved that it was more probable then not that OJ was liable for the wrongful death of the deceased.
Personally, I think OJ killed those two people. However, I think the jury came to the right decision in the criminal trial. There certainly was reasonable doubt. It is better to let a guilty person walk free then send an innocent person to jail. What is sad is that only rich people in our country can afford to have a fair trial. OJ spend millions on hiring the best forensic experts who were able to analyze and explain to the jury the evidence against him. He spend millions more on the best lawyers who could spend the needed time to properly prepare a murder trial. Usually the government has all the resources and those accused with murder have little to none. Most criminal lawyers are juggling many cases around at once, and a murder trial goes on for at most a week. OJ's lawyers worked only on his case, and the trial went on for over a month.
Moreover, the government often cheats to get convictions. For instance, in a mistrial the government will go and interview jurors to find out why some of the jury didn't want to convict. They then will cater the defendant's next trial to address those juries concerns. In addition, the government will charge a person with as many charges as possible for what is essentially the same crime. The result is a person is facing 50 years in jail. The prosecution then says if you plead guilty to this one crime, you'll only face 1 to 5 years. Considering that your fate as a defendant rests in the hands of a jury of people prone to prejudices, many people are going to admit to a less severe crime even if they are innocent.
Finally, the rules of evidence are mostly geared towards the prosecution's advantage and often are influenced by politics. Take for instance a man charged with rape. Say the accuser has a history of lying, stealing, and sleeping with tons of men. The man is respectable and has a clean record. The accuser claims he raped her and he claims the sex was consensual. All you really have in such a case is the man's word against the woman's word because all the physical evidence will show is that sex took place and that isn't at issue in this case. Yet, the man cannot bring up the woman's past history or his good behavior to show the jury the character of the two people.
So at the end of the day all the jury has to look at is crying woman's testimony and the man's testimony. If the woman lies, she probably will not face any jail time. If the guy is convicted he can go to jail for life. Most men are going to take a deal in such cases. If you are rich like Kobe, you will pay the accuser off so the charges will be dropped.
Not exactly. Criminal court decides if he committed murder or not. Civil court can only determine if he was responsible for their deaths, however that may have occurred. The civil judgement for wrongful death only says that he was responsible, not that he personally did it. It would be like a CEO refusing to replace a faulty piece of equipment, which then broke and killed someone. The CEO might be found responsible for 'wrongful death'. Or I think that's how it goes. Someone please correct my errors.
C
I didn't realize, in the US, people were guilty until proven innocent. Silly me, I thought it was the other way around.
Criminally, in a criminal court, yes. That is far different than civilly or in open society. There are no "innocent until proven guilty" protections outside the criminal arena. There is a far different, and much lower, standard for determining that someone has done something in a civil setting, compared to the standard that is evidentially and procedurally required to put someone in jail.
Hello, is anybody home? If a person has not been convicted of murder, you cannot call him a murderer. If your accusation is printed, your have committed the time honored tort of libel. That has been the case since our Country's ancestors were English.
Ummm. Yes you can and it is done routinely. OJ is not convicted of murder, but he was sued in civil court for the act and was found responsible. He has been referred to as a murderer multiple times and sued the Brown's for libel and lost because civilly he was found to have committed the act even though procedural issues prevented his criminal conviction.
even though procedural issues prevented his criminal conviction.
I thought the jury found him innocent, and it wasn't a "procedural issue." Did I get that wrong?
What happen to this country's backbone. We are sitting here passively while the criminals take over our country. Remember what made this country great? Let's get back to that!!!
Ummm. Yes you can and it is done routinely. OJ is not convicted of murder, but he was sued in civil court for the act and was found responsible. He has been referred to as a murderer multiple times and sued the Brown's for libel and lost because civilly he was found to have committed the act even though procedural issues prevented his criminal conviction.
It is clear you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I practiced criminal law as a prosecutor for over a year, so I do happen to know a little bit about what I am talking about.
The prosecution in the OJ case failed to prove OJ was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt like it was required to do to obtain a conviction. That is not a procedural issue. It is simply a failure of the prosecution to successfully make its case. Moreover, OJ was not sued in civil court for murder, which is a criminal charge requiring intent. He was sued in civil court for wrongful death, which is something entirely different. A wrongful death claim doesn't involve intent and often is more akin to negligence.
So when you say somebody is a murderer you are saying he or she intended to kill a person without a legally acceptable excuse (e.g. self defense). If a person was found liable for wrongful death of another person, but was not found guilty of murder, you likely cannot get away with legally calling him or her a murderer. If you do so, that is libel or slander.
It is libel or slander because to defend yourself from a libel or slander case you likely will have to prove the person is a murderer. In the OJ case, you cannot do that because a jury found him not guilty. On the other hand, OJ would be able to prove he wasn't guilty of the murder of Nicole and Ron because a jury found him not guilty. The wrongful death case doesn't prove OJ was a murderer, only that he was responsible for their death, which as I already said is something entirely different.
Although I am not positive, I think you are mistaken about OJ suing the Browns for libel.
My sister was murdered by her husband. This is my opinion. However, the state happens to agree with me and will be able to prove it. However, any media still have to fit the word "allegedly" in there somewhere in their story.
We have waited 9 years to finally go to trial this coming January. oursisterjulie.com
A person can state their opinion that a criminal is guilty of murder. But any official news or television show should know they need to put the word "alleged" when talking about a criminal who is not yet convicted.
My sister was murdered by her husband. This is my opinion. However, the state happens to agree with me and will be able to prove it. However, any media still have to fit the word "allegedly" in there somewhere in their story.
We have waited 9 years to final go to trial this coming January. oursisterjulie.com
Wow! Good luck!
It is clear you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. I practiced criminal law as a prosecutor for over a year, so I do happen to know a little bit about what I am talking about.
For a year. Wow. And you think that qualifies you to pass judgment on the standard of evidence that applies in a civil court? I think not. Your point is meaningless since you seem to have no grasp on the wonderful mushiness of civil proceedings and that short year in the criminal court does you more harm than good.
For a year. Wow. And you think that qualifies you to pass judgment on the standard of evidence that applies in a civil court? I think not. Your point is meaningless since you seem to have no grasp on the wonderful mushiness of civil proceedings and that short year in the criminal court does you more harm than good.
He happens to be right.
For a year. Wow. And you think that qualifies you to pass judgment on the standard of evidence that applies in a civil court? I think not.
Fortunately, that pesky bar exam he passed does qualify him to make that statement.
He happens to be right.
No
Fortunately, that pesky bar exam he passed does qualify him to make that statement.
and no.
No
and no.
Hiro, learn something before you write.
No
and no.
And what exactly are your qualifications for disputing TerrinB? From your argument "style" I'm guessing it's not any kind of background, degree, or certification related to the practice of law. Or are you a practicing attorney that stands before the judge and says "No and no," and then sits down?
Hiro, learn something before you write.
Mel if we both looked up at a blue sky at the same time and in the same place, you would say it's purple. You just run roughshod over any sensible argument that doesn't meet your personal approval. Frankly I don't care to argue with you because that isn't possible because you think you are always right. If I'm wrong at least I'll admit it.
And what exactly are your qualifications for disputing TerrinB? From your argument "style" I'm guessing it's not any kind of background, degree, or certification related to the practice of law. Or are you a practicing attorney that stands before the judge and says "No and no," and then sits down?
<looks around> <See courtroom?> No. <sits down>
Dude, you don't have to be a lawyer or have a certification. I'm not and don't. Have you been involved with a civil case that had a failed criminal aspect? How many hours consultation on top of retainer hours does it take to become intimately familiar with a situation like this. Not many, and it is far more common than you think. [the hours are necessary for the details, not the governing principles]
I couldn't give a rat's ass about certifications, I value primary source information and sound advice much more highly. I have found not all lawyers are created equal, and first impression of citing irrelevant experience is not a great indication of potential success. It also helps to sleep with a paralegal that does all the attorney's case research. If you don't like my answer fine, you don't have to.