Was the OJ trial really the travesty its painted as?

Great Debates
21

IMO, it was a travesty but I’m talking more about the process than the result. The investigation had operated under Murphy’s law – anything that could have gone wrong did – and the prosecution was truly incompetent.

The judge allowed literally thousands of sidebars, days of irrevelant, redundant or misleading testimony and often got into personal arguments with first one side and then another.

I compare this to another long murder trial(M. Peterson) that appeared on court TV this summer out of Durham, NC. The judge allowed each side to try their case, involving himself as little as possible, but when he ruled one way or the other, that was it. Straight forward easy going, without personal anger etc.

22

Huh? He literally bought his way out of a jail. He still golfs, sees his children and screws gullible women. The civil trial was more insult than justice.

And I hold the prosecution responsible for mucking up the first trial. If they had DNA’d the blood in the shower drain FIRST, then took his blood sample through a 3rd party service instead of walking around with it the trial would have been different.

23

Not to make light of the deaths of two people, but the idea that a rich person commits a crime and buy his way out of conviction and prison is hardly something that first occurred with Mr. Simpson.

If there is a silver lining to the whole dark cloud of this mess, it’s that OJ proves that black folks can get the same kind of treatment white folks get.

24

Isn’t it uncommon for a person to be found innocent in a criminal trial for a willful crime, but to lose a civil case regarding the same act?

Maybe a member of the GD Legal Squad could enlighten us.

25

Just a few observations:

Juries, like electorates, are swayed by emotion, prejudice and pre-conception. You succeed with a jury by playing to those non-intellectual tendencies. What juries don’t understand they distrust and are eager to reject and disregard. The defense in the Simpson trial played its jury and played on the human tendencies toward a decision based on visceral reaction to individual and group personalities of the witnesses. The defense would have been derelict if it had not done just that.

The presiding judge has no obligation to make sure that the trial has a correct outcome. What the judge does have an obligation to do is to make sure that all concerned have every opportunity to present their case within the rules. In other words, the judge’s job is to let the players play the game with only the amount of interference necessary to keep the game inside the field.

Just as soon as a witness climbs on the stand that witness’s credibility is in issue. It is perfectly legitimate to present evidence and then argue from that evidence that the witness has a motive to lie, distort, edit and manipulate his testimony in order to achieve the witness’s desired out come. Again, the defense would have been derelict if it hadn’t attacked the credibility of the State’s witnesses.

When the witness is advanced as an expert on some arcane subject like blood analysis and identity by forensic evaluation it is legitimate to attack the witness’s competence and suggest that the expert’s conclusions are not entitled to be accepted as reliable. Again, the defense would have been derelict if it hadn’t attacked the competence and reliability of the State’s expert witnesses.

It is the State’s duty to present its case in the most persuasive manner and to rebut the defendant’s attacks on the State’s presentation. That the State failed to persuade the jury is not the defendant’s fault.

When the defendant is fortunate enough to face a case that is presented with testimony of fact witnesses whose credibility can be attacked, with the opinions of experts whose reliability can be questioned and has a jury that is inclined to distrust the State’s witnesses then the defendant is in a position to get lucky. When, on top of all that, the public relations machinery of collegiate and of professional sports, of commercial capitalism and of the film industry has spent decades and millions of dollars to persuade the public that the defendant is a good guy and an admirable person then the defendant is in a position to get very luck indeed. It all came together for O.J. Simpson.

Do not talk to me about the Simpson case being decided by money. No matter what resources and legal talent Simpson had, the funds and talent available to the State of California was vastly greater. The State had the whole police and prosecution apparatus of the State at its beck and call.

If you are prepared to decide questions like those presented in the criminal prosecution to a jury of randomly selected citizens in an adversary trial process then you are bound to get an occasional aberration. We got such and aberration in O.J.’s case. It should be no surprise that there was an acquittal. There was a jury that wanted to let the man off. He was an American hero; how could you be persuaded that he did those horrible things if, deep in your heart, you really wanted not to be persuaded and if there were no personal consequences to you for voting with your heart instead of with your head?

26

Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but I think there were three deciding factors in the trial: Race, race, and…um, oh yeah, race. It was Cochrane convicing the jury that the LAPD could have, and would have, tried to frame OJ. No evidence really mattered in the end, because it was all suspect. The Bloody Glove was just a symbol; they could have had c.c. video footage of OJ doing the deed, and Cochrane would have asserted it was faked. We’re talking LA, post Rodney King, and a mostly-black jury. Throw that douchebag Fuhrman in the mix, and, hell, Cochran probably could have gotten half the jury to believe Fuhrman killed Nicole himself, just to frame him a famous colored boy.

I lived in Washington DC when: A) Hizzoner Marion Barry was caught on tape smoking crack with a whore; B) He served a six month sentance for a misdemeanor following presentation of exhibit A above, and; C) He was reelected Mayor of Washington DC by a majority. A juror, after the Barry trial, said point blank to reporters that he would charge Barry with no more, regardless of the crime, given the fact that the Man was after him. Later Barry’s second term was, if possible, more troubled by scandal and ineptitude than his first term, yet he still maintains a loyal following to this day among some who like to hold him up as a giant middle finger in the face of the White Establishment.

Sad thing is, the White Establishment deserves such an insult, but the majority black community was not well-served by putting Barry back in office. To hurt the Man, they hurt themselves. It’s tragic, really.

Likewise, I think OJ’s aquittal was, above all else, a political statement, facilitated by Cochrane’s brilliant shennanigans, and the LAPD’ overtly racist posture. For their incompetance, but more for their bigotry, the LAPD and LA County DA were handed perhaps the most humiliating rebuke any force has ever suffered, and it was richly deserved.

But in the end, there was no justice for the victims, who the trial really should have been about. The man who brutally murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, the one we all KNOW did it, walks free. The Goldman and Brown families must live with that for the rest of their lives. Another tragedy, and truly a travesty of American Justice all around.

27

Different standards of proof apply.

To be found guilty in a criminal court, the jury must think the guy is ‘guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ (think of this as 99% sure he’s guilty).

To be found responsible in a civil court, the jury must think the guy is guilty by “the proponderance of the evidence” (think of this as 51% or more that he’s guilty)

So if 2 juries both found themselves 75% sure he’s guilty, then he should be found criminally not guitly and civilly responsible.

28

Sigh. Officer Fuhrman, the so-called star witness lied on the stand. The prime evidence–the gloves–did not fit the alleged murderer. It has blood of the same type that was was not tracked down for a few days. What does race have to do with it? You decriers, be a defendant in a murder case, and be convicted based on that type of testimony and evidence mentioned above, and then tell me that’s justice.

In the civil case, the cop, the gloves and the blood was not introduced. OJ fries, as he should. Without the evidence in the criminal case, he fries as well.

I wish

29

What Fuhrman lied about wasn’t his actions related to the case, but over his racist attitudes in previous years. Being unrelated to the case, the line of questioning shouldn’t have been allowed. But Ito allowed it.

30

Capacitor, the gloves didn’t fit because he had latex gloves on when he tried them on in court. The prosecution was sloppy, but that doesn’t change the fact that the guy had no alibi, had been acting more and more violently toward his ex, had a cut on his hand, and so forth and so on. The gloves were incidental. By the time the civil trial rolled around, the opposition had located dozens of photos of him wearing the shoes he claimed he’d never owned, for instance.

31

Huge mistake to let Simpson try on the gloves in the presence of the jury. The man’s a professional actor, fer crying out loud (not an especially good actor, mind you, but if I was facing a possible death sentence, I’d suddenly turn Oscar-worthy). Simpson was able to grunt and grimace in pain as he pulled on the supposedly too-tight gloves. To me, being able to address the jury even in this fashion constitutes testimony, but without the annoyance of being cross-examined.

32

Because he was not found guilty in a court of law, there were no legitimate grounds on which to contest the custody of his children. That means that his kids are being raised by a man who brutally gutted their mother. I’d say that that’s getting away scott free. I don’t cry tears for people just because they, thanks to a civil trial, now cannot live in quite the 100M mansion they fancied. Awwww…

33

I read an excerpt for Clark’s book that they had ordered a pair of the exact same gloves from the manufactorer, but that before they got there, Darden wanted him to try on the glove during a key point in the testimoney, even though he had to try it on over the latex glove. She warned him that it wouldn’t work, but he wouldn’t listen.

I just remember that I was in school when the verdict was read-right after the bell rang for seventh period. They actually allowed us to stay in our classes to see the results-EVERYONE had it on. I was in the library for study hall. I remember hearing Not Guilty, and feeling utterly shocked and disappointed. Then I saw Kim Goldman sobbing in her father’s arms while people were cheering and I felt like I was going to vomit.

BTW, was I the only one who thought Simpson acted like an ass throughout the entire thing? Smiling, laughing, waving at people?

34

I love how it’s taken for granted that in racially charged situations like this, whites are cool-headed and rational while blacks are blinded by racial loyalty. I think it’s interesting that none of you were in the courtroom but you’ve all made it a point to have a definitive opinion on the case, opposite of what the stupid black jurors, who sat through the entire proceedings, sequestered from the media, decided. Here’s a fun experiement, the next time you find yourself thinking about the trial, just imagine that all the specifics of the case are the same except that O.J.'s murdered wife is black, and feel yourself suddenly not caring anymore.

35

I have no recollection of Simpson exhibiting any such behavior during the trial. He would occasionally make notes on a legal pad, and I do recall him shaking his head in disagreement when hearing testimony from certain witnesses, but as for waving at people and laughing, I never saw it.

When the verdict was read he did smile, but he also looked to be on the verge of tears. Johhny Cochrane was the one who got overexcited.

36

Two things about this trial, which I watched daily (ah, the sole saving grace of 2nd shift) from start to finish, that have always stayed with me: first, per above, where did that extra bag OJ insisted on keeping in his hands during the limo ride to the airport for the flight to Chicago go to, and second, anyone else recall the absolute dead giveaway look on Kardashian’s face as the “Not Guilty” verdict is read? OJ makes a face, one apparently meant to convey humility in the light of the bravery of the jury to arrive at an especially difficult exoneration (and a quick one too, remember?) while Kardashian, his best bud and lawyer stares blankly, looks around at everyone but OJ, and never makes it into the obligatory congratulatory hugs around the defense table. Stunning. That look tells it all.

37

If OJ’s wife would have been black he would have fried, hands down. There wouldn’t be any racial tension involved in the case. Even if Johnny C went after Furman, it woundn’t have been a big deal, they would just say OK, toss Furman’s testimony out, we still have 40 bazillion pieces of evidence against OJ. I think the black-biased jury would have seen things a bit differently too.

38

One police officer lied on the stand. And I think he planted the glove. Another officer mishandled blood evidence (took his sweet time actually booking it into evidence) and probably perjured himself. The forensics witnesses’ version of what he did was contradicted repeatedly by videotape. Kato Cailin? Please…

There was reasonable doubt. I would have aquitted. I am a white male.

As has been suggested, I think that OJ probably did kill them, then the LAPD conspired to frame him. Then the prosecution team screwed the pooch the rest of the way

39

What became of the Bruno Magli shoes? O.J. was photographed wearing those shoes in a newspaper that was published before Nichole was killed. But he said he wouldn’t own “ugly-assed shoes” like that. The murderer wore them and O.J. lied about having owned them.

I guess it is possible that O.J. forgot that he had indeed owned and worn those ugly-assed expensive shoes and that they had somehow disappeared from his closet. Maybe he gave them to Goodwill.

How did Nicole’s blood get inside the locked Bronco?

Why did O.J. have a disguise and $10,000 with him on his slow speed suicide chase?

Hypothetical: O.J. was guilty. How would the evidence have been different from what was presented?

Pizzabrat, you mistakenly assume a lot and that doesn’t make your point at all.

40

I read the thread title somewhat differently:

I find it a travesty that a simple criminal trial, one of a hundred similar trials that are going on at any given moment, should have become a national circus for so many weeks just because the defendant happened to be a celebrity of some variety. I find it a travesty that the jury of twelve became a jury of fifty million. I find it a travesty that many of the cast of characters in the proceeding have established a wide range of individual cottage industries based solely on associative notoriety, and that the public sucked it up and continues to do so. I find it a travesty that this manufactured media event will be a source of controversy and passionate discussion until the day I fucking die even though none of us knows either the victims or the perpetrator or was in the courtroom for the trial.

So yeah, it was and is a travesty. Just not for the reasons people usually offer.