Vincent Bugliosi Quotes

Everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise.

I never sympathise with the accused unless there's a chance the accused is not guilty, but I certainly don't ever sympathise with the criminal.

I think most defense attorneys know, to some extent, their clients are guilty.

After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said, 'We think he probably did it. We just didn't think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.'

There is a presumption of innocence in American law that means that you cannot consider making someone guilty until all the evidence is in the the procedures are completed.

As this case has progressed, the evidence that the prosecution has claimed exists against me has been proven less and less and less. And all that has happened is that they've filled these holes with speculation.

In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd.

When a person is found less guilty than he is suspected, he is concluded more innocent than he really is.

I am not guilty, I am innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections.

I never take up a case until I am convinced that the person is guilty.

I truly believe in O.J.'s innocence, and unless they find him guilty, I will continue to support him.

Most people fancy themselves innocent of those crimes of which they cannot be convicted.

Our constitutionally-based criminal justice system places a high value on protecting the innocent. Among its central tenets is the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict someone without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was never sufficient evidence presented at my trial to support a finding of intent to kill.

We have to be careful about applying criminal labels to people until we're very sure.

I thought it was possible that O.J. could have done something. It crossed my mind. I was thinking about the events of everything and going, Why did I hear that? I was going, No, it can't be, and just all that stuff was adding up.

Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just because you're convicted in a court room doesn't mean you're guilty of something.

A reasonable doubt is nothing more than a doubt for which reasons can be given. The fact that 1 or 2 men out of 12 differ from the others does not establish that their doubts are reasonable.

When I was initially charged I still thought I was not guilty because I had followed the rules.

If you're a prosecutor, and you believe the defendant is guilty, you only talk about ultimate truth, but not intermediate truth. If you're the defense attorney, you care deeply about intermediate truth, but you tend to neglect ultimate truth.

An important and fundamental premise of the American judicial system is the presumption of innocence, that is until proven guilty.

It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.

I would say that without any doubt he's the killer - the law says beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty which I - there's no question that he was the killer of President Kennedy.