Full Version: The Judge and OJ Simpson's Money
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070120/us_nm/simpson_book_dc
As far as OJs actual guilt or innocence in his old murder trial goes, I don't have any opinion on it. Recently though, a judge ruled that OJ Simpson cannot spend any money that he made from the book deals.
From my understanding of the law, a man cannot profit from a crime if he is found guilty of the crime. OJ Simpson however got acquited of the murder and is legally innocent, even if he were to give a full confession on Public TV. Prohibiting OJ Simpson from making money on a book deal in effect discourages him from writing and infringes on his Freedom of Speech. After all, book authors need to make money if they're going to sit down and take the time to write a book. And people have written books about Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and other infamous criminals. So why can't OJ Simpson write a book about who really killed Nicole? I personally would have paid money to read OJ Simpson's book if the publisher did not cancel the deal.
So the question is
Does the Judge have the right to prevent OJ Simpson from earning money on book deals or interviews?
As far as OJs actual guilt or innocence in his old murder trial goes, I don't have any opinion on it. Recently though, a judge ruled that OJ Simpson cannot spend any money that he made from the book deals.
From my understanding of the law, a man cannot profit from a crime if he is found guilty of the crime. OJ Simpson however got acquited of the murder and is legally innocent, even if he were to give a full confession on Public TV. Prohibiting OJ Simpson from making money on a book deal in effect discourages him from writing and infringes on his Freedom of Speech. After all, book authors need to make money if they're going to sit down and take the time to write a book. And people have written books about Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy, and other infamous criminals. So why can't OJ Simpson write a book about who really killed Nicole? I personally would have paid money to read OJ Simpson's book if the publisher did not cancel the deal.
So the question is
Does the Judge have the right to prevent OJ Simpson from earning money on book deals or interviews?
So the question is
Does the Judge have the right to prevent OJ Simpson from earning money on book deals or interviews?
The judges aren't prevening Simpson from earning the money on the book deals, they're just saying he has to use that money, or any other money he earns, to pay the judgements against him. As far as that goes, both judges are on firm legal footing.
Of course, the judgements against Simpson are most decidedly not on firm legal footing, but then I'm a big believer in "No Double Jeopardy", and that includes using a civil trial to punish when a criminal trial already failed (OJ Simpson), using different charges and/or jurisdiction to go after someone when they've already been acquitted (the Rodney King beating trial), and throwing 15 different charges at someone for one event. As far as I'm concerned, Simpson probably should have been found guilty. Since he wasn't, the civil trial should have been shut down.
Does the Judge have the right to prevent OJ Simpson from earning money on book deals or interviews?
The judges aren't prevening Simpson from earning the money on the book deals, they're just saying he has to use that money, or any other money he earns, to pay the judgements against him. As far as that goes, both judges are on firm legal footing.
Of course, the judgements against Simpson are most decidedly not on firm legal footing, but then I'm a big believer in "No Double Jeopardy", and that includes using a civil trial to punish when a criminal trial already failed (OJ Simpson), using different charges and/or jurisdiction to go after someone when they've already been acquitted (the Rodney King beating trial), and throwing 15 different charges at someone for one event. As far as I'm concerned, Simpson probably should have been found guilty. Since he wasn't, the civil trial should have been shut down.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jan 20 2007, 01:41 AM) 
Of course, the judgements against Simpson are most decidedly not on firm legal footing, but then I'm a big believer in "No Double Jeopardy", and that includes using a civil trial to punish when a criminal trial already failed (OJ Simpson), using different charges and/or jurisdiction to go after someone when they've already been acquitted (the Rodney King beating trial), and throwing 15 different charges at someone for one event. As far as I'm concerned, Simpson probably should have been found guilty. Since he wasn't, the civil trial should have been shut down.
I agree. Although I personally enjoy thinking of OJ squirming and lying in the gutter, unable to profit from his criminality, he was found innocent of the charge. Since he was found innocent, what legal footing could the civil suite be based on? It smacks of double jeopardy and disturbs me. So, in a nutshell, although I would never buy that book, or watch whatever show he happens to be on, because I would be supporting him with my money....
I do believe that the only thing which should stand in his way is public opinion. If enough people are interested in this trash to buy it
he should be able to profit from sales of it (unless he has other legal obligations to pay for unrelated to the crime he was acquitted of).
So the question is
Does the Judge have the right to prevent OJ Simpson from earning money on book deals or interviews?
He was found innocent for murder by the criminal court but NOT by the civil court where a jury awarded the family millions and they get paid first is my understanding:
The panel ordered Simpson to pay $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the Goldman family.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/february97/simp_2-5.html
Does the Judge have the right to prevent OJ Simpson from earning money on book deals or interviews?
He was found innocent for murder by the criminal court but NOT by the civil court where a jury awarded the family millions and they get paid first is my understanding:
The panel ordered Simpson to pay $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the Goldman family.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/february97/simp_2-5.html
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.