Why wouldn't the judge allow potential jurors to be asked if they consider OJ Simpson to be a murderer?

[Harbinger]

Wouldn't that reveal a bias?


Powered by Yahoo Answers

[PJ]

Because it is irrelevant to the current case and he was never convicted of being a murderer.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Is everything a Violation on Y!A]

Everyone knows OJ is a murder, anyone who thinks he is not is a fool. so they want to find fools who will find OJ innocent even though they evidence will point out he is guilty.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Ghost of Ronald Reagan]

Probably because EVERYBODY consideres OJ Simpson to be a murderer. But she should have allowed the question in voir dire if the defense wanted it.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Sunny]

OJ is rich, no matter the race if your rich you will go to court, but can buy your way out. Sadly this country is greedy and runs on cash. I know for a fact he did it, even if he hired someone to do it he is still guilty. Also I get a odd feeling he offered those jurors money if he is free, but he already paid the judge I bet.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[Jenny B]

Possibly because his "Prior Bad Acts" are not admissable in court.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[tpmccarthy@sbcglobal.net]

The judge will ask more general questions about the ability to give both sides a fair trial, but OJ is not on trial for murder and the instructions to the jury will require them to decide the case solely on the evidence admitted in the trial.

Powered by Yahoo Answers

[MJ Vashti]

You can't just "consider" one to be a killer without being convinced first by evidential presentation. That's bias, unfair and rediculous. The only way you can know if someone's a killer is by proving it, no trial [should] be based on personal opinion. Duh.

Powered by Yahoo Answers