Playing on prejudices is not ethical, but if the defence can exploit the jury’s ignorance about the facts in a case, it’s the prosecution’s fault for not explaining clearly why these facts prove the defendant’s guilt
Agreed.
Everyone knows that the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. When we think about it for a while, it means that:
there’s noone who’s “clearly guilty” in a legal sense until they have been fairly convicted; and
it’s the prosecution’s responsibilty to prove guilt, not the defence’s responsibility to prove innocence. Mitigating factors don’t come up unless you’re admitting guilt or after guilt has been proven by the tribunal (ie at sentencing).
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the prosecutor to present a clear set of facts, and if the defence counsel can make these facts appear inconsistent or illogical through fair argument, they should and will do so.
I’m reading on CNN that Cochran was also involved in prosecuting Lenny Bruce. Great man. :rolleyes:
Cochran may have gained the most fame from the OJ Trial, but it was a freakshow long before the country knew anything about him. The Simpson lawyers weren’t called the Dream Team just because Johnnie Cochran was there.
Don’t forget that during the preliminary hearings, before he got hired by OJ, Johnnie was a commentator for NBC, and thus was in a position to speak out about the case before he ever set foot in the court room. And what two things do people remember about the OJ trial? The slow-speed pursuit and “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
You mean the various spousal abuse laws which came about as a direct result of the killings of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman aren’t good for society? The fact that large portions of the population got an intimate view of how the justice system works isn’t a good thing?
He was good at his job. Not everyone liked him, or his methods, or his results (mostly people didn’t like his results I think), but he was gifted in his profession. I can only hope to be that good at what I do.
If we’re going to blame someone for his clients not being convicted, blame the right person. Blame the prosecutor whose job it is to make sure their case isn’t susceptible to attack, and whose job it ALSO is to redirect the attention of the jury to the important facts - and to nullify the racecard - or any other card that gets played by the defense. Or, better yet, blame the client who you think committed the crime.
Personally, if I were accused of a crime, I’d damn sure want the best I could get defending me. And I wouldn’t want the quality of their performance based on whether or not they, personally, thought I was guilty.
It is NOT a defense attorney’s job to pass judgment on the guilt of their clients. It IS their job to give the most zealous advocacy allowed under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The racebaiting? You mean bringing out the fact that Furman is a racist fucktard who tampered with evidence? Because that was the only “racebaiting” I saw in the trial. I guess, just so’s he won’t be called Satan’s Tampon when he died, good ole Johnnie should have looked over Furman’s indiscretions because. well, we don’t wanna bring race into it.
Look, I think OJ is a double murderer who should be behind bars, but his lawyer did a great job in defending him. Imagine calling somebody the Tampon of Satan because he did his job well.