Orenthal James "The Juice" Simpson - Dead at 76

[camel]

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.

I’ve known a few criminal defense attorneys and continue to know them. They did and do the attorneys thing. That’s protect the client to the best of their ability. Everything else is on the process and state or federal depending I am nowhere near an expert on that stuff. But as I heard at a social gathering. The juice is no longer loose. Well. A lot of people opine on shit and have no direct knowledge. Most watched tv trial in how long. Just let it go. The fuck are we reliving the early 90s here.

[willie]

I remember that his attorneys discredited the white lead detective to such extent that the jury nullified by voting not guilty.

[DMF13]

. . . he was 100% guilty . . .

"Let"s save the State of New York a lot of time and money and move directly to sentencing. What? lsn"t she entitled to a fair trial? Let"s give her one and then convict her."


The system is set up specially so attitudes like yours don't prevail.

The ability of the government to deprive someone of liberty, and/or property, should be, and is, extremely difficult/limited.


This sometimes results in situations where someone like you, who hasn't seen the evidence/testimony, is angry at a verdict.

Too bad. Get over it.

[DMF13]

You didn't have to believe Furhman planted evidence - you just had to believe he might lie about evidence and might have planted it. And therefore you can't trust anything he said. When someone's life hangs in the balance that is your responsibility as a juror - to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant not the prosecution.

This is why any information known to the government, that might be used to impeach the credibility of a witness, must be disclosed to the defense.

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/150/

[TGS]

I'm baffled by how emotionally wrapped up in OJs not guilty verdict that some of you are.

[MistWolf]

It’s about time OJ dig up dirt on Hillary

[Crusader]

"Let"s save the State of New York a lot of time and money and move directly to sentencing. What? lsn"t she entitled to a fair trial? Let"s give her one and then convict her."


The system is set up specially so attitudes like yours don't prevail.

The ability of the government to deprive someone of liberty, and/or property, should be, and is, extremely difficult/limited.


This sometimes results in situations where someone like you, who hasn't seen the evidence/testimony, is angry at a verdict.

Too bad. Get over it.

All the lawyers and wanna be lawyers are playing the deflection game and law school games with my question, but still have not answered that question.

The question was when you are a lawyer and you know without a doubt your client is guilty of a double homicide(as OJ’s team did)how do you live with yourself when he walks Scott free.

[HCM]

All the lawyers and wanna be lawyers are playing the deflection game and law school games with my question, but still have not answered that question.

The question was when you are a lawyer and you know without a doubt your client is guilty of a double homicide(as OJ’s team did)how do you live with yourself when he walks Scott free.

You internalize it and all of you die of stress induced cancer like your client.

[Elwin]

All the lawyers and wanna be lawyers are playing the deflection game and law school games with my question, but still have not answered that question.

The question was when you are a lawyer and you know without a doubt your client is guilty of a double homicide(as OJ’s team did)how do you live with yourself when he walks Scott free.

This has been answered, but to reiterate:

Because my role in our system of government supporting and giving effect to rights like presumption of innocence, proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and trial by jury is vastly more important than the question of whether or not one guilty person goes to prison. And moreover, sending my client to prison is the state’s job, not mine. My job is to force them to carry their burden.

And again, WHAT exactly are you saying such an attorney should do instead?

[Joe S]

All the lawyers and wanna be lawyers are playing the deflection game and law school games with my question, but still have not answered that question.

The question was when you are a lawyer and you know without a doubt your client is guilty of a double homicide(as OJ’s team did)how do you live with yourself when he walks Scott free.

It seems to me that you are concentrating on an individual moral issue that carries a lot of weight to you personally, while many are approaching it from a social ethical issue that may be distasteful, but the logic seems sound. That's why it seems you are taking past each other.