In 1995, after nearly ten months of testimony, a criminal jury acquitted celebrity football player and actor O. J. Simpson of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend restaurant waiter Ron Goldman. Then in 1997, a civil jury found Simpson liable for the murders, fining him $33.5 million in damages. How can these juries come to two such different verdicts on the same issue

Question

Aylin Carter

Social Studies

15 January, 12:47

In 1995, after nearly ten months of testimony, a criminal jury acquitted celebrity football player and actor O. J. Simpson of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend restaurant waiter Ron Goldman. Then in 1997, a civil jury found Simpson liable for the murders, fining him $33.5 million in damages. How can these juries come to two such different verdicts on the same issue

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Nathaly Hubbard · Answer 1

These Juries were capable of coming to two such verdict because, a criminal jury's burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a civil jury's burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence."

A criminal's jury burden of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt means that the legal standard for deciding the outcome of a criminal charge, requires evidence that is sufficient to eliminate any doubts that a reasonable person might entertain about whether a claim is more likely to be true than not.

A civil jury burden of proof being preponderance of the evidence means that the legal standard applied for deciding the outcome of civil disputes, requires that evidence be sufficient to determine that a claim is more likely to be true than not.