You know O.J. is dying to confess..... {merged} (1 Viewer)

I have a question for the forum lawyers.

I understand the whole double jeopardy thing so that "technically" OJ can never be prosecuted for murder (inserting the obligatory "if he hypothetically did it" disclaimer). But if OJ walked into a police station right now and confessed, there isn't anything that he could be charged with?

Since he didn't testify, I guess perjury is out. But it would seem that there had to have been some case in the legal annals where someone was accused of murder, acquitted and then revealed to have been guilty and that there would some legal mechanism to address that.

Just curious.

While there may be some lesser crime you could stick on him, by this point the statute of limitations has probably run on most of them. Murder usually doesn't have a statute of limitations, but he was acquitted of murder. It really depends on Californial criminal law, which I don't know.
 
While there may be some lesser crime you could stick on him, by this point the statute of limitations has probably run on most of them. Murder usually doesn't have a statute of limitations, but he was acquitted of murder. It really depends on Californial criminal law, which I don't know.

Wouldn't it also require "new evidence" in order to retry him, and that a confession isn't considered enough evidence by itself without corroborating physical or circumstantial evidence?
 
Wouldn't it also require "new evidence" in order to retry him, and that a confession isn't considered enough evidence by itself without corroborating physical or circumstantial evidence?

This wouldn't be a re-trial. It would be a new trial on a different charge. Besides, I would think that a confession would be enough to go to trial on. Now if the other evidence shows the confession is false, then you don't prosecute (hopefully)--like the guy that confessed to the Ramsey kid's murder.
 
Wouldn't it also require "new evidence" in order to retry him, and that a confession isn't considered enough evidence by itself without corroborating physical or circumstantial evidence?

New evidence doesn't matter if you have been acquitted of a crime. They can't try you for the same crime twice. "New Evidence" only applies to someone who has been convicted and asks for a new trial. If they find new evidence that they did not commit the crime, they can ask the Court to give them a new trial based on new evidence.


The only thing I can think of that OJ might be able to be prosecuted for is Obstruction of Justice, but like Sandman said, it's likely the Statute of Limitations has run out on any lesser crimes that he could be charged with.
 
Double jeopardy only applies when a prosecution occurs by the same sovereign as prosecuted before. Thus, the federal government could prosecute someone for the exact same crime that the person was acquitted for in state court.
But murder of a non-federal employee on non-federal land is not a crime under federal law - so OJ is fine on that end.
 
Double jeopardy only applies when a prosecution occurs by the same sovereign as prosecuted before. Thus, the federal government could prosecute someone for the exact same crime that the person was acquitted for in state court.
But murder of a non-federal employee on non-federal land is not a crime under federal law - so OJ is fine on that end.


Yeah, I should have included that caveat. But, I didn't think about it since I don't think you could stretch any of OJ's crimes to be Federal Crimes.
 
Double jeopardy only applies when a prosecution occurs by the same sovereign as prosecuted before. Thus, the federal government could prosecute someone for the exact same crime that the person was acquitted for in state court.
But murder of a non-federal employee on non-federal land is not a crime under federal law - so OJ is fine on that end.

I remember after the trial some were clamoring for him to be tried for civil rights violations by the Feds ala the cops in the Rodney King beating.
 
While there may be some lesser crime you could stick on him, by this point the statute of limitations has probably run on most of them. Murder usually doesn't have a statute of limitations, but he was acquitted of murder. It really depends on Californial criminal law, which I don't know.


I would not think it depends on California law in the sense that no state law can over ride the protections granted by the bill of rights. The 5th amendment guards against double jeopardy and the 14th makes it applicable to the states. The Juice is loose on this crime even if he confesses it on Times Square. There is no federal law involved as in the Rodney King case that would allow the feds to prosecute.

This whole "If I did it" thing is just a really shameless attempt by Simpson to cash in on his murder. No one in their right mind should buy the book and Fox should not be helping him promote it.

I wonder how much of the civil judgment was collected and if they could go after him for the proceeds of the book. I know a lot of him money was in some large pension that was protected from being seized.

I also wonder what goes on in OJ's sick and twisted mind. Does he feel remorse? Does he think he was justified? Does he feel persecuted? Is the book some twisted way in his mind of confessing? Is the book some twisted way in his mind of rubbing it in that he got away with murder?

Strange stuff.
 
Last edited:
If he is in fact innocent, then this is attention...mongering....in the worst way. Not to mention he must lack all human emotions, including decency and empathy, to write a book which will just rekindle what must have been the worst time in his life, let alone the families of the deceased.

If he is guilty, then this book is him bragging about it and coming as close as he can to saying "ha ha fooled you" while reliving what he probably considers the best time in his life. Nicole and Ron's families will probably go beserk. And again, he would have to be an absolute animal with no human emotions, including a conscience, to write it.

Either way, he is a sick and twisted individual to even consider writing about this, given that he should know that Nicole and Ron's families have to live with their pain and loss every day. Exploiting the murders, whether he is innocent or guilty, is absolutely nauseating.

But hey, gotta pay those green fees somehow, right?
 
Didn't the Brown and Goldman families win a civil judgment against him?

i think he should confess, and then fight Mike Tyson.
 
I would not think it depends on California law in the sense that no state law can over ride the protections granted by the bill of rights. The 5th amendment guards against double jeopardy and the 14th makes it applicable to the states.

You can't be charged with the same crime twice. However, if there is another crime that he could be charged with, then you can go after them for that other crime.

Here's an example...a guy is arrested for murder and kidnapping. They do not go forward with the kidnapping charges and he is found not guilty of murder. The prosecutors then bring charges of kidnapping and try him on the kidnapping charges. It all evolved from the same events, but they can try him on the kidnapping charges because he wasn't tried on that crime, just murder.

In that regard, it depends on what other crimes under California law he could be convicted of.
 
OJ is disgusting!! Did anyone see that he had a paper view show that was kinda like pinked but it was called juiced. He would play practical jokes on it and everything. What a jerk!!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom