O.J. Pulls White Bronco Prank on 'Juiced' In a scene from his new candid-camera program "Juiced," O.J. Simpson pulls a prank involving the infamous white Bronco, drawing criticism from the family of a man he was accused of killing. As part of the pay-per-view show, Simpson pretends to sell the Bronco at a used car lot and boasts to a prospective buyer that he made the vehicle famous, according to a segment aired Thursday on "Inside Edition." "It was good for me it helped me get away," Simpson said, referring to the slow-speed, televised police chase that preceded his 1994 arrest on charges of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Goldman's father, Fred, told "Inside Edition" he found Simpson's comment "morally reprehensible." Simpson was acquitted of murder. A civil jury later held him liable for the deaths and ordered him to pay $33.5 million to the Brown and Goldman families. Much of that judgment remains unpaid. "Any money that he makes, I hope, will go to satisfy the multimillion dollar judgment made against him in the civil case," said Brown family attorney Gloria Allred. The hour-long program is airing on pay-per-view this month, and a DVD offering uncensored material will be made available soon, "Juiced" executive producer Rick Mahr told The Associated Press. Other practical jokes include Simpson disguised as an Elvis impersonator, a vagabond selling oranges for money and an elderly man leading a Bingo game. Simpson was not paid for the program, Mahr said. "Basically O.J. Simpson has decided to do this because he wants to do it, and he wanted to have fun with it," Mahr said.
I hear the gag wear he slices the blonde girl's throat then looks into the camera and says, "She just got JUICED" -- is pretty hilarious.
So OJ didn't really find the REAL KILLER at the Golf Course??? I want my Golf Club money back... I only signed up to help him out!
i don't understand the justice system. if you're found not guilty of a crime, how can you be found liable to pay for a crime you "didn't commit"?
criminal vs. civil. and a lawyer can go into further detail on the burden of proof which is apperantly lighter in civil court.
i understand it's criminal vs civil. but i would think it makes sense that once you're found not guilty of a crime, it should absolve you of any financial responsibility b/c, by default, you never committed it.
That's also something I've always wondered. Imagine being accused of stealing somebody's jewelry, being found not guilty, then being forced to pay for the jewelry that was stolen...I wouldn't pay, either!
because its two different systems. I understand your point, but its not the same system. now from what I understand, when you're proven guilty in a criminal court than its almost a slam dunk that you will have to pay, but an innocent verdict doesn't prevent that. its a whole new trial, its a different system. put it to you like this, most civil cases probably don't even have a criminal going on also. like if you decided to sue someone for breach of contract. but like I said, a lawyer I'm sure could give you a better reason.
^^^i know there's two different systems, but why? OJ was basically tried twice (which according to law is a no-no). the only difference is the type of punishment.
the only no-no about double jeopardy is if the government does it. you generally can't be subject to criminal prosecution twice. but you can be sued in a civil suit. the stakes are different and the standards are different.
But a not-guilty verdict isn't the same as an innocent verdict. Not guilty simply means that the prosecutor didn't prove you guilty, rather than truly saying you're innocent. So while it doesn't let the government prosecute you again, it doesn't necessarily absolve you depending on the circumstances.
Max and Major covered it. Not guilty is "not proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", meaning that there was some doubt in the minds of the jurors that OJ was guilty. We bend over backwards to not send people to jail without nearly absolute proof of guilt. Civil cases don't carry the same deprivation of liberty, so they don't carry the same protection for defendants. In fact, losing the civil trial doesn't really seem to have hampered OJ's lifestyle much at all.
