[dekeguy]

A couple of comments:
1. Burden of proof rests with the prosecution in almost all instances and certainly in this case. In criminal law it is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. In Civil Law the standard is somewhat less, it is determined on the balance of probabilities.
2. In Scotland there is a third verdict - Not proven. This means that the defendant was probably guilty but there was insufficient proof to overcome the issue of reasonable doubt. It is often described in UK Law Schools as "Not Guilty but don't do it again." We might do well to adopt that option in the US.
3. If someone with 'standing' before the court, like a family member, wants to pursue the issue there is always the civil remedy of Wrongful Death. OJ was hit with such a suit and massive damages were awarded to his late wife's family.
4. Incidentally, I believe the OJ trial was NOT a miscarriage of justice. The evidence chain of custody was hopeless and the investigating detective was shown to be prejudiced and have ample opportunity to mishandle evidence and plant evidence detrimental to OJ. Whether or not he did the crime was not established beyond 'reasonable' doubt. Therefore the verdict was solid.
The wrongful death issue was a means of destroying OJ financially. However, the later arrest and trial which landed him in prison seemed a bit too much of a 'let's get OJ and throw his butt in jail' revenge action. The old chesnut that 'Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done' sticks in my craw in that case. There were so many mitigating and extenuating circumstances involved that I thought the sentence was excessive and sent a very unfortunate message. Please remember as you read this that I am the Conservative Barrister who has often been called a right winger in GC.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they are worth.