Free the Juice!

SmarterthanYou said:
what brilliant process would you put in place to be the singular last non-violent check on government abuse of power????
Click to expand...
The jury system obviously failed miserably in the OJ case as did the judge who let the trial get out of control by essentially making it a trial of the L.A. police dept. rather than about O.J. So there was no check on that. The system failed.
Sporting events have instant replay, a flock of judges (umpires). I'd say an improvement would have been a mistrial declared by a tribunal overseeing the trial, remove Ito from it, and start over in a different location.
SmarterthanYou said:
this shows that you have zero interest in the rule of law, just the rule of abuse of power and government overreach. congrats, traitor.
Click to expand...
I see you have zero interest in a fair outcome.
 
aloysious said:
The jury system obviously failed miserably in the OJ case as did the judge who let the trial get out of control by essentially making it a trial of the L.A. police dept. rather than about O.J. So there was no check on that. The system failed.
Sporting events have instant replay, a flock of judges (umpires). I'd say an improvement would have been a mistrial declared by a tribunal overseeing the trial, remove Ito from it, and start over in a different location.I see you have zero interest in a fair outcome.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney or a judge but seems like a lot of double jeopardy opportunities to me. Is every trial suppose to have a tribunal that can declare they don't like the jury results and to redo the trial until they get a result they like?
 
cawacko said:
I'm not an attorney or a judge but seems like a lot of double jeopardy opportunities to me. Is every trial suppose to have a tribunal that can declare they don't like the jury results and to redo the trial until they get a result they like?
Click to expand...
No. But the trial was a farce. Should have been declared a mistrial once it became obvious it was a trial of the L.A. police dept. rather than a murder trial. There was no check on Ito.
 
aloysious said:
No. But the trial was a farce. Should have been declared a mistrial once it became obvious it was a trial of the L.A. police dept. rather than a murder trial. There was no check on Ito.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm trying to understand the logistics. How would a trial be determined to have a tribunal before hand that would have the authority to remove a judge?
 
cawacko said:
I guess I'm trying to understand the logistics. How would a trial be determined to have a tribunal before hand that would have the authority to remove a judge?
Click to expand...
That's where I think our legal system could be improved. We don't have that. All trials should have checks and balances.
Besides if the gubmint loses a case say in a anti trust trial it has the right to appeal.
This was the people ( and the Goldmans) vs. OJ. Justice for the people and for the Goldmans especially was not done, wouldn't you agree? Yet they had no right to appeal.
 
aloysious said:
That's where I think our legal system could be improved. We don't have that. All trials should have checks and balances.
Besides if the gubmint loses a case say in a anti trust trial it has the right to appeal.
This was the people ( and the Goldmans) vs. OJ. Justice for the people and for the Goldmans especially was not done, wouldn't you agree? Yet they had no right to appeal.
Click to expand...

Thinking bigger picture I don't like the idea of having a tribunal group have the ability to do something like that. This is how our system works. The Goldman's sued in civil court and won. How many times should someone be allowed to be tried until the desired outcome is achieved?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the record shows he was acquitted, therefore he didn't murder their family member. or do you wish to do away with jury trials in our justice system?
Click to expand...

it was my observation in 1995 that when the now dead crook lawyer [johnny cochran] said "if the glove does not fit, you must acquit"; justice died. that was the time when jury trials became ineffectual because of a damned fool public. justice is dead and the people are as sottish fools. the only just judgment now will come from above; not by the hand of man. as I explained in the now ethereal pre 2015 jpp crash posts; this was a pivotal point in my life and when I was converted/ born from above; the oj simpson double murder travesty trial was instrumental in revealing to me what time it is in the timeline of this ending of the age. "justice" by man is dead. I believe Zimmerman, oj and hundreds of thousands of other killers of all kinds should be dead. the land is polluted with this human garbage.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
Thinking bigger picture I don't like the idea of having a tribunal group have the ability to do something like that. This is how our system works. The Goldman's sued in civil court and won. How many times should someone be allowed to be tried until the desired outcome is achieved?
Click to expand...
It is what it is. Nothing's perfect, is it? But IMO Ito was trying so hard to be racially PC that it got in the way of actually trying OJ for the murder he committed.
 
aloysious said:
It is what it is. Nothing's perfect, is it? But IMO Ito was trying so hard to be racially PC that it got in the way of actually trying OJ for the murder he committed.
Click to expand...

That was a very rare and unique case. Trying to change the system after the fact because you don't like the outcome of a rare trial just reeks of big problems in the future.

The DA did move the case to DT LA because they didn't think conviction by an all white jury in Santa Monica would be accepted in the same way.
 
cawacko said:
Trying to change the system after the fact because you don't like the outcome of a rare trial just reeks of big problems in the future.
.
Click to expand...
Not really. I remember North Carolina making big changes in tort reform law after John Edwards almost single handedly ran all Ob/Gyn's out of a couple of counties there. Wish I could find a good link , had several back in my Bill Maher board days, but that was quite a while ago.
 
cawacko said:
I'm not an attorney or a judge but seems like a lot of double jeopardy opportunities to me. Is every trial suppose to have a tribunal that can declare they don't like the jury results and to redo the trial until they get a result they like?
Click to expand...

Apparently, you wanted that for the "racist" Nevada case.

In short, the answer is "yes" if the verdict is guilty. It's called the appeal process. Not guilty once and you're done.
 
cawacko said:
Thinking bigger picture I don't like the idea of having a tribunal group have the ability to do something like that. This is how our system works. The Goldman's sued in civil court and won. How many times should someone be allowed to be tried until the desired outcome is achieved?
Click to expand...

As you said, the Goldman case was civil. Different standards of proof. Different issues.

Next
 
domer76 said:
Apparently, you wanted that for the "racist" Nevada case.

In short, the answer is "yes" if the verdict is guilty. It's called the appeal process. Not guilty once and you're done.
Click to expand...

I said the judge was racist. She was. I didn't ask for another trial
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top