When Cochrane croaks the Dopers joke.
Yeah, I got nothin’.
boom
No he doesn’t. A defendant is entitled to a vigorous defense and thats exactly what Cochran did.
If it’s a brain tumor, his death’s not a rumor.
And a murderer is entitled to kill his victims and that’s exactly what O.J. did.
Johnnie Cochran wasn’t the only person responsible for a double murderer walking, but he was instrumental. He played the race card to help a scumbag get away with murder. His legacy–and his family’s misfortune–is that’s how he’ll always be remembered, no matter what else he did in life or how many puppies he hugged.
That doesn’t make sense, Eve. Noone’s entitled to murder. Everyone’s entitled to a good legal defence, as long as that defence is ethical.
He didn’t play the race card, in fact quite notably avoided doing so, if only because he didn’t have to. (Because the media did it for him.) His defence of OJ was based on impeaching the prosecution’s evidence, and particularly that of the detectives.
The arguments regarding the accuracy of DNA typing, and the famous “glove scene” were designed to do nothing more than confuse and confound the jury, not to exculpate the defendant. Classic smoke and mirrors. Hence, “Look at the monkey!”
I’d say Simpson’s legal defense “Dream Team” skirted the boundaries of ethicality, but then, the result says a lot about how politics, social issues, and the general ignorance of the average population plays a significant role in jury decisions. Perhaps twelve “peers” are not, in fact, the best judge of a defendant’s guilt.
Stranger
[George Carlin]
Holy shit, Dave!
[/George Carlin]
Did anybody have him in the death pool? This may award a winner at the earliest time yet.
Atticus Finch, insert index finger down throat to induce vomit-spewing. If you were any more full of shit your abdomen would spray bodily fluids for 6 square blocks. Please think of your neighbors.
And yet, if it weren’t for the OJ trial, we wouldn’t have the spousal abuse laws on the books, and forensic evidence wouldn’t have such strong standing in court. If it hadn’t been for Johnnie, the OJ trial probably would have been on the backburner, much like Robert Blake’s trial.
And wouldn’t that have been a damn shame. How would we as a society have made it without wall-to-motherfucking-wall coverage of the fucking OJ trial?
Well, at least some good came out of the OJ trial. Can’t say the same for the Blake trial.
I kind of liked the SOB (said with endearment BTW). He was full of shit but likeable. Probably why he made a good attorney. I always blamed the OJ thing more on incompetent prosecutors and a dumb jury anyway. May he rest in peace.
Correct. It is the prosecutors who would more need to explain their incompetence.
If he can cast the prosecution’s case into doubt, it’s his duty to do so. You might not be convinced - hell, I still think OJ did it - but it’s his job to attempt to impeach the DNA and glove evidence. That he was running rings around the prosecution is the prosecution’s fault.
If you’d like to argue that he acted unethically, feel free to show us how he did that.
Duffer, that kind of crap’s for the pit. I don’t believe that he played the race card. If you think he did, argue about it.
Was Satan being sued?
IIRC, he’s already got most of the dead lawyers, so why would he want another one?
Everybody loves getting new toys, right?
There is a difference between raising reasonable doubts and playing on the prejudices and ignorance of the jury. In particular (from what I saw), the defense team played upon the jury’s intimidation of the technical discussion of DNA typing.
“Fair representation” should not equal “by hook or by crook”. If a defendant is clearly guilty, it should be the responsibility of the defender to present the mitigating factors, NOT attempt to confuse the jury to the point at which they cannot make a coherent decision. Yet another problem with the adverserial court system. Unfortunately, I don’t really have a more effective solution, but it doesn’t keep me from holding the opinion that Cochran participated in the miscarriage of justice.
That being said, the verdict was no doubt a significant part of the lack of preparation of the prosecutor. In that particular case, it seemed like everyone was so busy giving press conferences and posing for the cameras that the actual trial was of secondary importance. :rolleyes:
Stranger
Comments like this are a bit counterintuitive. If there’s an afterlife it exists whether you believe in it or not, so even if you don’t believe in an afterlife he could be giving Nicole/Ron an explanation right now.
Of course maybe not, since his client was acquited we don’t know for sure that he was guilty.
I don’t know where you get that. The OJ trial was one of the most highly anticipated in recent memory, and when it finally started, it eclipsed everything else on daytime TV. People sat riveted through sidebars, for crying out loud. It sounds like you’re saying that people were shrugging it off until Cochrane’s verbal gymnastics woke them up. That’s not how I remember it.