Orenthal James "The Juice" Simpson - Dead at 76

[Eric_L]

Big difference between the too, if a innocent man is found guilty there are still avenues to justice appeal system etc.

But when you help a murderer walk free, it’s a done deal. He can’t be tried again. There is noway for the victims and their families to get justice, well there is one way but we are not talking about that.

The look on Kardashains face when the not guilty verdict was read said it all, he was shocked and had a come to Jesus wave of guilt wash over him. He may have been the only defense attorney on that team that actually had a soul.

There have been a number of people who are exonerated after many decades. The avenues to appeal are there, but I am not impressed. I’d MUCH rather guilty go free than innocent get convicted.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Race has been part of our system for ages. If one read what African-Americans were called before the Civil Rights movements by the white authorities, you might be shocked. What else is new? The race card - now that was used to exclude Black juries for ages.

[Eric_L]

Even the detective acknowledged there are people in jail or prison convicted for things they didn't do. Of course, he noted that calling them "innocent" may not be totally accurate, either.

Maybe that is his thought process so he can sleep at night? I’ve heard that before. It does not resonate with me. Society is not trying them for all their unknown “crimes”, just the one they were suspected of.

[idahojess]

It's too bad Norm didn't outlast OJ.

[WobblyPossum]

It’s the nature of the business, in this case the legal system of the United States. OJ’s legal team did their jobs and defended him to the best of their ability. If the race card can create reasonable doubt, then you play it. You know how they sleep at night? Because they did what they were supposed to do, and did it well. Obviously the money and fame that resulted didn’t hurt, but there should never have been a reason for them to feel bad about winning that case, even if there wasn’t any money or fame on the other side. I’m glad there are great defense attorneys out there. I want them around in case I ever happen to be accused of a crime. I always pay attention to who the best defense attorneys are in whatever jurisdiction I’m working in, the ones the prosecutors have said are tough to try cases against.

[Borderland]

That's the system we have, like it or not. I think OJ walked because he was a celebrity, one of many that were never convicted. No doubt he had the very best legal representation and he probably paid his attorneys. OJ didn't seem like a grifter, regardless of his homicidal tendencies.

[BillSWPA]

YMMV

IMHO all of these things were true at the same time and in no particular order. (Nor is this list exhaustive)

1. OJ did it
2. LAPD- most charitably characterized-played fast and loose with the chain of custody.
3. OJ had a collection of the best legal/expert talent available at any price.
4. Cameras made what should have been 4 week trial a 44+ week trial and that was a very bad thing.
5. The Glove Test was a significant and avoidable tactical error.
6. Trying the case, Downtown v. Brentwood, in retrospect, was a significant tactical error.
7. Fuhrman's perjury injected reasonable doubt into the case under the applicable law/jury instructions at the time of the offense.
8. The prosecution was at the edge or their lane in terms of capacity relative to the defense team.
9. The fact that the defense counsel "knew" that OJ did it is irrelevant to his right to the best defense possible. ( I am unaware if anyone on the defense team has ever been quoted as saying that OJ confessed to them v. their belief independent from their assumed role as a defense atty.)
10. The jury was concerned that a guilty verdict would cause civil unrest.
11. Having the trial drag out gave the jury too much time to think about things outside of the evidence in the case.
12. Certainly as a prosecutor, if you have not won a trial you could have lost and lost a trial you could have won, you simply have not tried enough cases yet. That number is somewhere between 5 and 20.
13. There is no such thing as a criminal defense attys who specialized in representing factually innocent folks because there are very few factually innocent folks tried and convicted. There are can be legally innocent folks based on procedural/constitutional issues and that is precisely why prosecutors should be put to their burden by competent/capable defense counsel.


Re the racial divide on the verdict even when controlling for Socio-Economic Status - white men killed innocent black men with legal impunity well into the 20th century. The ONE time a black man is found not guilty of killing 2 innocent white folks and now the Criminal Justice system needs thoughtful and comprehensive reform?

Adding one more point to this list: after sitting through a 9 month trial, I cannot imagine a single juror not being very highly motivated to reach a verdict as quickly as possible to end that ordeal.

[BillSWPA]

You keep going back to the legalities and that is not what I’m talking or debating, I understand and agree with all that.

I’m talking from a moral point of view, what OJ should have done is never killed those people.

I’m talking about the attorneys that knew for a fact he was guilty got him off and reaped the fame and monetary reward from it.

We can talked about the legalities till we are blue in the face, that doesn't change the fact his defense team knew for a fact he murdered two people in cold blood. I’m sure it makes them and others feel better to continually go back to the legalities of it.

But that doesn’t change my question, how do those dirtbags sleep at night.

Knew he was guilty? How?

How is anyone ever supposed to get a competent defense if their attorney decides not to do their job as well because they decide that they “know” their client is guilty?

What happens when (not if) the state decides to use the criminal justice system to eliminate a political opponent?

What if someday you are falsely accused of something, and your attorney decides he “knows” you are guilty?

[BillSWPA]

Good points - this is a System 1 - Emotional view vs. a System 2 - Cognitive Response.

The idea that an obvious bas person gets away with it galls us. Does it weaken the deterrence of the law? However, our system is designed on a cognitive basis that gives us a system that protects the rights in most cases.

Let's flip this - there is a drum beat of police shootings or civilian shootings like George Zimmerman where the shooters are, on the surface, obviously guilty. Digging into Zimmerman's case (like Mas as written about), it's not so clear cut a slam dunk for the prosecution. Should he not have had lawyers take up his case? Or the police cases?

Is it just a matter of degree with private lawyers now determining guilt by not offering defenses?

This is an old issue and the law literature, philosophers and various scholars, geeks, nerds and Internet experts have discussing it in detail.

PS - side issue, IIRC, Judge Ito was a gun guy and even wrote letters to Gun Tests (is that still around) asking what is the best gun.

George Zimmerman is an excellent example. How many people thought they “knew” he was guilty based on the preliminary news reports? We learned the truth later because he had a good lawyer, who will almost certainly never be paid for more than a small fraction of the time spent on that case.

[ccmdfd]

It's too bad Norm didn't outlast OJ.