Start selling your Lebron stuff......

[Balticfox]

Congratulations! You get the booby prize. Somebody is always quick and eager to claim it.

Read my lips. A man is innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law. Better yet read the Fifth Amendment to your Constitution where the presumption of innocence is enshrined.

The logic in the O.J. Simpson case is very clear. O.J. Simpson was innocent until the jury delivered its verdict. The jury's verdict was "Not guilty". There was therefore no change to his innocence which is always a person's default status until and unless that person is found "Guilty" in a court of law.

We'd be living in a nightmarish society where governments would be putting away "troublemakers" by the simple expedient of laying charges were the presumption of innocence not the cornerstone of our legal system. Is that what you want?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Congratulations! You get the booby prize. Somebody is always quick and eager to claim it.

Read my lips. A man is innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law. Better yet read the Fifth Amendment to your Constitution where the presumption of innocence is enshrined.

The logic in the O.J. Simpson case is very clear. O.J. Simpson was innocent until the jury delivered its verdict. The jury's verdict was "Not guilty". There was therefore no change to his innocence which is always a person's default status until and unless that person is found "Guilty" in a court of law.

We'd be living in a nightmarish society where governments would be putting away "troublemakers" by the simple expedient of laying charges were the presumption of innocence not the cornerstone of our legal system. Is that what you want?

Whoa my friend, calm down. Nobody is advocating for a different regime. The point, rather, is that innocent has different meanings depending on context. Legally, yes, OJ was found not guilty. So he remained "innocent" in that sense. But whether his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law (a court where the prosecution royally effed up btw) is one thing. Whether he is truly innocent in the broader sense of the word is quite another thing -- he wasn't, as I think everyone knew including the civil jury.

[Peter_Spaeth]

By the way, the fifth amendment does not mention the presumption of innocence. That said, it is considered to be part of due process. It goes back to the Magna Carta and probably further.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whoa my friend, calm down. Nobody is advocating for a different regime. The point, rather, is that innocent has different meanings depending on context. Legally, yes, OJ was found not guilty. So he remained "innocent" in that sense.

It's the law that's the subject of discussion here and my only interest is that the presumption of innocence isn't eroded. Were it not for the presumption of innocence I'm sure they'd be rounding up those they find "inconvenient". (Didn't they just put Tulsi Gabbard on the "Watch List" in your own country for criticizing the government?)

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But whether his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law (a court where the prosecution royally effed up btw) is one thing.

So then I guess the prosecuting attorneys must have been fired by the California Attorney General and then disbarred for incompetence beyond the norm for State employees. But I don't recall hearing or reading any such accounts. Perhaps my memory is failing me now that I'm past retirement age.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whether he is truly innocent in the broader sense of the word is quite another thing -- he wasn't, as I think everyone knew including the civil jury.

I have severe problems with the civil litigation process in the States. A major problem is that litigants have broad scope to select a favourable jurisdiction for the assessment and trial of their case

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By the way, the fifth amendment does not mention the presumption of innocence.

How about this then?

Originally Posted by Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Section 11(d)

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right:

d. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

[Peter_Spaeth]

I absolutely agree, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a jury trial, are fundamental.

The OJ prosecution was a disaster. Asking him to try on the gloves was one of the stupidest courtroom moves ever. Some of the witnesses were very poorly prepared. It may be a closer call, but the decision not to offer any evidence of his attempted flight also was a mistake IMO. Was this because Clark and Darden were too busy having an affair? Dunno.

I don't have any issue with the venue statutes and rules. Tell me what specifically you think is a problem. Is your issue with forum selection clauses? The forum chosen still has to have a reasonable relationship to the matter at issue. How are they different from any other contractual term?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The OJ prosecution was a disaster.... Was this because Clark and Darden were too busy having an affair? Dunno.

I remember Time (or was it Newsweek) gushing over Marcia Clark never having lost a case she was prosecuting before the O.J. trial. I guess she was accustomed to working plea bargains with Court appointed defence "counsels". Facing experienced trial lawyers was another ball of wax for her entirely.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't have any issue with the venue statutes and rules. Tell me what specifically you think is a problem. Is your issue with forum selection clauses? The forum chosen still has to have a reasonable relationship to the matter at issue. How are they different from any other contractual term?

1. First of all, in this specific case the civil proceedings were moved to Santa Monica from Los Angeles County because the plaintiffs didn't like the pool from which the jury would be selected in Los Angeles County.

2. And in general:

Originally Posted by Class Actions Comparative Guide: mondaq

Are the courts in your jurisdiction generally considered sympathetic to class actions?

Generally, certain state courts have been known to be more sympathetic to class actions than federal courts. Though the rules for class certification are similar, the manner in which certain state courts interpret the class action rules gives the impression that the state courts are far more favourable for plaintiffs. Thus, class action plaintiffs often file class action complaints in state court whenever possible, while defendants often try to 'remove' such cases to federal court.

In fact, state court 'sympathies' for class actions against corporate defendants made certain state jurisdictions notorious for class action abuse and state court 'forum shopping'. These perceived abuses led to the enactment of the federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) – perhaps the most significant change to class action practice in many years. CAFA sought to prevent this type of state court forum shopping by granting the federal courts jurisdiction over class actions involving more than 100 class members and over $5 million in controversy, among other requirements.