OJ Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case but found guilty in the civil case. The criminal case pitted the accused against the government and required the prosecution to prove that OJ Simpson killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Mens Rea and Actus Reus issues would apply in determining whether OJ Simpson was guilty of First-Degree Murder. The Mens Rea element examines the thought of the accused, and in this case, the prosecution had to prove that there was premeditation on behalf of OJ Simpson and a deliberate act to commit the crime. From the evidence adduced in court, the prosecution sought to prove that Simpson had a domestic violence past and used Nicole Simpson’s past 911 calls as proof. The witnesses that the prosecution brought also proclaimed that Simson was abusive. Additionally, the prosecution used Simpson’s stalking of his ex-wife to prove that he premeditated killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. On their part, the defence argued that Simpson was a victim of racism by the police. Having a past domestic violence past could mean that a person has a violent tendency while stalking his ex-wife while with her companion, Ron Goldman, indicated that Simpson might have been uncomfortable with the relationship. However, it does not mean that he intended to kill the two, which requires proof of Actus Reus.

The Actus Reus element, in this case, is the actual murder act. It means that the police must place Simpson at the murder scene and prove that he was the killer. Some of the evidence that the prosecution provided included hair and blood-soaked glove found at Simpson’s home and Ronald Goldman’s bloodstains on the white bronco seats owned by Simpson. However, the prosecution did not have the murder weapon. Where there is no murder weapon, it is difficult to prove that a person murdered if the actual murder weapon is not present to ascertain whether the accused owns the weapon. The other challenge was that when Simpson tried to fit the blood-soaked glove, it did not fit him, meaning that the narrative by the defence that the police planted the evidence was effective. Actus Reus was impossible to prove without the murder weapon, and where a critical piece of evidence such as the blood-soaked glove could not fit the accused. In examining the evidence put before them and the arguments of both the prosecution and the defence, the jury found Simpson not guilty.

In the criminal case, I find that the jury came to the right verdict since the prosecution failed to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a requirement in a First-Degree Murder crime. The jury can only rule on a case based on the evidence put forth. The defence’s argument against the evidence produced was damaging to the prosecutor’s case, especially when the glove could not fit Simpson’s hand. I also observe that had DNA evidence been permissible at the time, most likely, the Actus Reus would have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, especially if the police had found Simpson’s DNA at the crime scene, which would place him at the scene of the crime.

The verdict in the civil case was guilty, and this is because the burden in the civil case was for the plaintiff to prove that Simpson was probably the killer, as opposed to proving beyond reasonable doubt that he was the killer. In probability terms, the burden on the civil case is lower than on the criminal case. Additionally, since the bloodstains on the seats of Simpson’s bronco and the car chase that he engaged the police before being arrested indicated that he had some connections with the murders, it was easier for the plaintiffs in the civil case to prove that he was probably the killer, resulting in the guilty verdict in the civil case.

Both juries can be right in the two cases since the burden of proof is different for the criminal case compared to the civil case. The prosecution can struggle to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson is the killer in the criminal case, but the plaintiff can prove that he could probably be the killer in the civil case using circumstantial evidence. Given this, the two juries could reach different verdicts and be right.