While not wanting to open this debate here, I must say I am not convinced of OJ's guilt and find evidence enough to raise a reasonable doubt in my mind. I think the OJ trials are proof that the system works as designed and for justice.The Annoyed Man wrote:But OJ wasn't no-billed. He was actually tried and found innocent. The trial was a sham because of incompetent prosecution, a judge with his head in the clouds (who was a member of my former church), and the defense's use of the race card. Even after it was over, there remained a lot of compelling evidence to support a conclusion of guilt.
This is true in Texas also, as it is in most states. The level of proof for a civil trial is a preponderance of the evidence while a criminal trial requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.The threshold of proof in California for a civil trial to obtain a guilty verdict is lower than for a criminal trial.
The no bill verdict indicates the grand jury did not believe there was probable cause for a conviction or that they felt the case was justified. It does not indicate anything about what the prosecution wanted. Though there is usually very little difference between what the prosecution asks for and a grand jury result, it is not really a rubber stamp system.Joe Horn was no-billed, meaning that the prosecution did not think they could charge him and make it stick. Since it he was never tried and either acquitted or convicted, it would be fairly difficult for plaintiffs to prove guilt. ...at least that's how it seems to me.
In addition, I think it is fairly easy to prove Mr. Horn's killing of the suspect's/ What the Castle Doctrine would require is his proving, in court, that he met the requirements of Chapter 9 for justification. He has to raise the defense in the civil trial, at least in motions, before the immunity would kick in.
I would almost be willing to bet that he agrees with you now too.BTW, it is my personal opinion that Horn made a terrible mistake by going outside that day.