Scribd
Upload
80 views

Introduction (Con'd) : - O.J. Simpson Case Demonstrates The Difference Between Civil and Criminal Standards

O.J. Simpson was charged with murder but found not guilty in the criminal case due to reasonable doubt. However, in the civil case using the balance of probabilities standard, a jury found O.J. Simpson liable for wrongful death and battery and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in damages. The credibility of witnesses was a key factor in the civil finding against O.J. Simpson.

Uploaded by

Scarman21
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views

Introduction (Con'd) : - O.J. Simpson Case Demonstrates The Difference Between Civil and Criminal Standards

O.J. Simpson was charged with murder but found not guilty in the criminal case due to reasonable doubt. However, in the civil case using the balance of probabilities standard, a jury found O.J. Simpson liable for wrongful death and battery and ordered him to pay $33.5 million in damages. The credibility of witnesses was a key factor in the civil finding against O.J. Simpson.

Uploaded by

Scarman21
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Introduction (cond)

O.J. Simpson case demonstrates the difference between civil and criminal standards:
Facts:
O.J. Simpson was charged with the murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman O.J. Then became the subject of a high speed chase on the highway after failing to turn himself in At trial, the defence team alleged mishandling of DNA evidence and police misconduct
61

Introduction (cond)
Decision:
Criminal Case: not guilty on the basis that burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt not met
Allegations of mishandling of DNA evidence, as well as allegations of police misconduct, cast reasonable doubt as to whether O.J. was guilty

Civil Case: jury found that on the balance of probabilities O.J. was liable for the wrongful death and battery of Goldman and Brown.
Ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages Credibility of witnesses stated to be a key factor in finding O.J. liable
62

Privilege (contd)
R v. Murray
Facts:
Ken Murray was accused of attempting to obstruct justice by concealing a videotape which contained evidence of the crimes committed by Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka Instructed by Bernardo to remove the tapes from Bernardos home and to not reveal their content Ken Murray retained the tapes for 17 months eventually turned over the tapes to the police on advice from Ontarios law society
88

Privilege (contd)
Decision:
Solicitor-client privilege covers only communications between solicitor and client not physical evidence of criminal acts Mr. Murray found not guilty nonetheless as evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to his intention to obstruct justice Law Society of Upper Canada charged him with professional misconduct but ultimately dropped the charges (grey area in rules)
89

Ultimate Limitation Period


Generally speaking, even if the basic limitation period has not expired, no proceeding shall be commenced in respect of a claim after the expiry of the ultimate limitation period

98

You might also like