In the American judicial system, the conviction standard adopted in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt". Specifically, in the court trial, if the prosecution wants to accuse the defendant of being guilty, it must produce conclusive and credible evidence to prove the defendant guilty. There is no doubt that there will be some doubts about any evidence, but the jury can only convict the defendant when it is convinced that the evidence has reached the standard of "excluding reasonable doubt".
So, what is "beyond reasonable doubt"? Professor Wigmore, the authority of American evidence law, believes that the meaning of this legal term is "elusive and undefined". However, this term contains an extremely important principle: because the life of a criminal case is of paramount importance, the jury need not be convinced of the defendant's innocence when deciding innocence. As long as the evidence presented by the prosecution is flawed and fails to meet the strict standard of "excluding reasonable doubt", even if there are many signs that the defendant is suspected of committing a crime, the jury can still convict the defendant. Some people say that one of the characteristics of the American judicial system is that "it is better to miss a thousand nets than to wronged a person", which is extremely vivid.
Through the Simpson case, people will notice that the American judicial system pays more attention to procedural justice and conclusive evidence than to seek the truth of the case and bring the criminals to justice. If the purpose of the American judicial system is to seek the truth of the case, then the criminal suspect should not have the right to silence at all. In fact, the core of the entire American Constitution and judicial system is to prevent "tyranny is fiercer than tigers" and pay attention to protecting civil rights and following due process. Justice Douglas of the Supreme Court of the United States brilliantly pointed out: "Most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights are related to procedures, which is by no means meaningless. It is the procedure that determines most of the differences between the rule of law and the arbitrary or changeable rule of man. Strict compliance with legal procedures is the main guarantee for us to achieve equality before the law. "
Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court said: "Compared with the despicable and illegal actions of the government, the crime of criminals evading legal sanctions is much smaller." In Holmes' view, the overall harm caused by government abuse of power and judicial corruption to the country and society far exceeds that of ordinary criminals. Therefore, the core and focus of the constitutional rule of law is by no means to crack down on criminals by hook or by crook, but to trace back to the source, pay attention to the procedural constraints and checks and balances on government power, and prevent law enforcers and those in power from being above the law, taking advantage of their privileges and state dictatorship machines, taking advantage of others, arbitrarily oppressing one side, and having nowhere to complain about grievances. Preventing evil government from committing crimes is far more important than preventing unruly people. Preventing the abuse of "whoever steals a hook must be punished, and whoever steals a country must wait" and the false "rule of law" of the rulers' freedom are important features of the design of the "rule of law" system in the US Constitution. Four months after the criminal trial, Goldman's parents Fred Goldman and Sharon Rufu sued Simpson for wrongful death, and Brown's father Lou Brown fought an "inheritance war" with Simpson on behalf of Brown's estate. At the request of the judge, the case was not broadcast on TV. The lawyer of the Goldman family is daniel peter Rochelle, and Simpson's lawyer is Bob Baker. Both the defense lawyer and the prosecution lawyer were highly praised by the lawyers present. Simpson's defense cost in this case is estimated at $654.38+0 million, which was paid by an insurance policy of his company Orenthal.
Baker once allowed Petroselli to show the evidence that Simpson failed the polygraph test in the murder case, which became his mistake. Foreman was not summoned to testify, while Simpson was summoned to testify for himself. The jury in the civil trial ruled that as the children of Brown and Simpson, Sidney and Justin will receive $6,543,800+0.25 million from Brown's heir Simpson. The victim's family received $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Simpson was criticized for trying to escape the verdict by hiding assets after the jury made an unfavorable verdict.
More than ten years ago, the famous civil lawsuit "Simpson case" experienced a period of trial after sentencing, mainly to evaluate Simpson's property. In this regard, the estimates of the two sides are quite different. Simpson's lawyer claimed that Simpson had been heavily in debt after three lawsuits (including his lawsuit for custody of children), and the plaintiff's lawyer even connected Simpson's existing property, assuming that his fame would earn another $24 million in the future, thinking that he was still able to pay huge compensation. In this regard, the defendant specially asked the businessman to testify that the goods marked by Simpson could not be sold after the incident, and their "fame" was worthless. Many people in China think that the Simpson case is a typical "money makes the mare go", which shows the evil of capitalism. In fact, although Simpson can hire a strong team of dream lawyers to fight against the prosecution and win, civil compensation after half a year has turned Simpson from a rich star into a poor man. (Part of this article comes from the American writer Linda's sequel to Simpson. Television broadcasting is a household name, and people have an intuitive understanding of judicial procedures and the specific system of the rule of law, which has become the largest classroom for popularizing legal knowledge. Television stations live on ratings. The better the report, the more controversial it is, and the higher the ratings. Celebrities are suspected of killing their wives, and TV stations are speculating, for fear that someone will not know. All major TV networks spare no effort to send the strongest reporters to conduct on-the-spot interviews. Various soap operas, comedies and talk shows are also based on some famous figures among judges, defendants, prosecutors and witnesses. They are very lively and try their best to help.