I was all of about 9-10 years old when this happened. But even my adolescent mind could comprehend that the difficulty in maintaining the chain of evidence, the pre-existing notion that the LAPD is/was racist, the fact that Fuhrman lied under oath about using the N-word...
The glove thing is one aspect. But Fuhrman lying under oath nailed it. 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.
To me a conviction could have been won by a more competent prosecution. Or it could have been won by mediocre prosecution with more competent detective and forensics work. If both had existed, OJ would have died in Folsam yesterday.
Quoting so this master stroke is on page 6.Originally Posted by RevolverRob
The jury vetting folks have said that the prosecution made a major mistake in voir dire and selection. Their theory was that having more women and the jury and esp. black women would act against OJ. They would sympatico to an abused victim as there was a great deal of abuse in their community. However, the consultants found that African-American women had significant antipathy towards the female White victim for entering their community and taking their eligible and successful males. Basically gold diggers who pray on these men offering some kind of status to the black male. The prosecution ignored this advice and research for their own 'gut'. Defense with their own consultants knew this act chose accordingly.
One might say that the evidence should prevail but if there is doubt then these sort of issues will consciously or subconsciously influence jury decisions.
The resultant support for the OJ decision can be seen in part as an exploiting woman getting her just desserts from a system already prejudiced against them. Some CNN commentators : https://nypost.com/2024/04/12/media/...parks-outrage/
Not that the Post is a paragon of unbiased truth.
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age
But this still comes back to the constitutional and other legal principles, because everything you’re saying here may be understandable but it begs the question: what exactly should they have done instead? The implication is either that they should have thrown the trial, or at least given it less than their all, or that no moral person should ever represent someone they believe is guilty. Either of those alternatives would destroy our current legal system if every defense attorney put them into practice.
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?
I am not your attorney. I am not giving legal advice. Any and all opinions expressed are personal and my own and are not those of any employer-past, present or future.
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.
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age
Now that brings back some memories! Quick online search, yes it is.
Oh, have also read some opinions that Ito was the primary issue with the trial. He allowed the defense to turn the thing into a circus.
I don’t know, maybe they could have not destroyed evidence for OJ. Not have lied, not have pulled the race card etc.
The way I see it, turning our legal system into a giant clown show and using race baiting as a get of jail free card along with all the lawfair we see today has just about destroyed it anyway.
I worked mostly from home during that trial, and had it on most of the time.
-Detective took OJ’s shoes home for the weekend, and stored them in his bedroom closet.
-Fuhrman fell for the trap. Who would claim they NEVER said the N word???
-Disappearing blood samples, and the defense arguing that lying Fuhrman could have sprinkled that at Nicole’s residence.
-The glove.
The brother was in Naked Gun.
Reply With Quote