O. J. Simpson received a sentence that could result in 33 years in prison, or he could be out on parole in 9, according to this AP story by Ken Ritter with Linda Deutsch.
The judge specifically denied relying on Simpson's killling of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman as a basis for the sentence, eliminating a controversial legal question from the case.
It is well established that facts informing a judge's choice of sentence within the statutory range for the crime of conviction do not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges can and do consider misconduct for which a person was never charged as a crime. But if the person is charged and acquitted, should that allegation be usable nonetheless? Logically, there is no reason why acquitted conduct should be treated any differently from never-charged conduct. The jury verdict of "not guilty" is a misnomer. It doesn't mean the defendant is actually not guilty; it means his guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Simpson's case, his guilt was proven to the satisfaction of a civil jury, by "clear and convincing evidence," after a full trial by top-notch lawyers. If consideration of acquitted conduct is allowable at all, it is hard to imagine a better case for it. However, it looks like this case will not be the test case for that proposition.
Doug Berman has this post at SL&P.
The judge specifically denied relying on Simpson's killling of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman as a basis for the sentence, eliminating a controversial legal question from the case.
It is well established that facts informing a judge's choice of sentence within the statutory range for the crime of conviction do not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges can and do consider misconduct for which a person was never charged as a crime. But if the person is charged and acquitted, should that allegation be usable nonetheless? Logically, there is no reason why acquitted conduct should be treated any differently from never-charged conduct. The jury verdict of "not guilty" is a misnomer. It doesn't mean the defendant is actually not guilty; it means his guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Simpson's case, his guilt was proven to the satisfaction of a civil jury, by "clear and convincing evidence," after a full trial by top-notch lawyers. If consideration of acquitted conduct is allowable at all, it is hard to imagine a better case for it. However, it looks like this case will not be the test case for that proposition.
Doug Berman has this post at SL&P.
Leave a comment