# O.J. jurors feelings today? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 21, 2006, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341 "2006-11-21T21:11:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/21 "2006-11-22T02:18:21Z")
[QUOTE=Spartydog] The Simpson jury can forever be cited one of the greatest abuses of the American justice system. [/QUOTE] Amen. The DNA evidence alone was incontovertible proof of guilt, beyond any reasonable doubt. The person most responsible for losing that case was Marcia Clark: she assumed the guilt was so obvious that she didn’t have to work to prove it. She dropped all kindsa balls in that trial. The person most responsible for winning the case was Johnny Cochran: by dishonestly telling the jury that a shred of doubt about any one piece of evidence equalled “reasonable doubt,” he lied to them about what that standard actually is: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” is an out-and-out lie. But again, it’s Clark’s fault for not rebutting that clearly. Her failure to do so simply confirmed the lie for the jury. The best analogy I’ve heard was someone who pointed out that Cochran convinced the jury that the evidence was like a chain, and any one faulty piece of evidence destroyed the whole case. When, in fact, the evidence is more like a rope: the failure of one or two individual fibers does not necessarily destroy the rope. One single piece of incontrovertible evidence remains incontrovertible, even if other evidence doesn’t stand up. Clark let the analogy stand and is entirely to blame. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/22 "2006-11-22T02:54:49Z")
[QUOTE=lissener] The person most responsible for winning the case was Johnny Cochran: by dishonestly telling the jury that a shred of doubt about any one piece of evidence equalled “reasonable doubt,” he lied to them about what that standard actually is: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” is an out-and-out lie. But again, it’s Clark’s fault for not rebutting that clearly. Her failure to do so simply confirmed the lie for the jury. [/QUOTE] I’ve a question about the trial procedure. Didn’t Cochran say that during his summation? I don’t recall which was first, the prosecution’s summation or the defense’s. Whose was first? ---
**Author:** ![A.R.Cane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@A.R.Cane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.R.Cane)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/23 "2006-11-22T02:55:39Z")
> [@](#): > > The Simpson jury can forever be cited one of the greatest abuses of the American justice system. Maybe African Americans might disagree w/ you, I think they could cite many other instances of injustice. Here are a couple of the more recent, and more notable, for your consideration: [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/price&bowers/price&bowers.htm](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/price&bowers/price&bowers.htm) > **[Emmett Till](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till)** > > City of Oxford Other localities Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American boy who, at 14 years old, was abducted and lynched in Mississippi in 1955. The brutality of his murder and the acquittal of his killers drew attention to the long history of violent persecution of African Americans in the United States. Till posthumously became an icon of the civil rights movement. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/24 "2006-11-22T03:01:18Z")
[Summary of the closing arguments.](http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/36.html) Per custom, the prosecution went first, followed by the defense. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/25 "2006-11-22T03:26:00Z")
Then it would’ve been kind of hard for Clark to have rebutted the infamous comment, wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/26 "2006-11-22T03:33:27Z")
One juror later said that the glove argument played less a factor in their decision than others thought. They knew that it was possible to make the glove look ill-fitting depending on how Simpson flexed his hand. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/27 "2006-11-22T03:51:20Z")
[QUOTE=Monty] Then it would’ve been kind of hard for Clark to have rebutted the infamous comment, wouldn’t it? [/QUOTE] Not at all. Closing arguments start with the prosecution, then the defense and finally a rebuttal by the prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/28 "2006-11-22T04:41:14Z")
[QUOTE=A.R. Cane] Maybe African Americans might disagree w/ you, I think they could cite many other instances of injustice. Here are a couple of the more recent, and more notable, for your consideration: [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/price&bowers/price&bowers.htm](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/price&bowers/price&bowers.htm) > **[Emmett Till](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till)** > > City of Oxford Other localities Emmett Louis Till (July 25, 1941 – August 28, 1955) was an African-American boy who, at 14 years old, was abducted and lynched in Mississippi in 1955. The brutality of his murder and the acquittal of his killers drew attention to the long history of violent persecution of African Americans in the United States. Till posthumously became an icon of the civil rights movement. [/QUOTE] I didn’t say “the greatest”, I said “one of the greatest”. This should have been a slam-dunk case for the prosecution. Is there any recall of the Bronco suicide ride? If there is any justice in the world neither Simpson nor any of the jurors will have a quiet night’s sleep until they are dead. ---
**Author:** ![BrassyPhrase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea666f/32.png) [@BrassyPhrase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrassyPhrase)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/29 "2006-11-22T04:56:10Z")
Realize we all sit here Monday Morning Quaterbacking, and we all did during the trial OJ was so guilty to us (people watching) but wasn’t the jury sequestered? They allegedly (I know I spelled that wrong) were working from just the admitted evidence. It may have looked different there. And they’re really supposed to look at the stuff in front of them, not the gut feeling. Though I’ve sat in a jury, and I can tell you, the people sitting there make a difference. That’s kinda the purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/30 "2006-11-22T05:45:20Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] The problem is that most legal analysts, **including other prosecutors,** said that the evidence and testimony given in the Simpson case was some of the most persuasive evidence they had ever seen in a homicide trial. [/QUOTE] Which is why prosecutors don’t decide questions of guilt. No matter how strongly a prosecutor may feel about the case, it’s up to the jury of one’s peers or the impartial judge to assess the case and decide it. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/31 "2006-11-22T05:51:33Z")
[QUOTE=Spartydog] This is where you, and a lot of others, get sidetracked. The test is “beyond a reasonable doubt” **NOT** “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. In the most egregious of cases you can somehow find a “shadow of a doubt”. Everyone would somehow be innocent. “Reasonable” demands a more critical analysis. When the DNA, the circumstantial evidence, the timeline and the motive intersect a rational human will usually conclude that there is no “reasonable doubt”. [/QUOTE] The standard of proof is not a side-track - it’s a key protection for the accused person. It’s not enough that the evidence, when summarised overall, sounds persuasive. A trial is about convincing the fact-finder. The prosecution bears the heavy onus of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the reported statements from two of the jurors in this case, it seems clear that the prosecution did not meet that burden. “Probably” isn’t enough to send someone to jail. If the evidence was as strong as you make it out to be, I would be more inclined to blame the prosecutors than the jury, for not having done their job properly. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/32 "2006-11-22T06:38:30Z")
Or the jurors could just be biased and/or stupid. ---
**Author:** ![WonJohnSoup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f17d59/32.png) [@WonJohnSoup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WonJohnSoup)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/33 "2006-11-22T07:27:52Z")
I remember watching an interview with one of the OJ jurors a few months ago. He was a black male. He clearly said he believed that OJ probably did it. Straight out, no sidestepping or qualifiers. He just didn’t feel the prosecution presented a strong enough case to reach a guilty verdict. Before someone jumps in talking about Judge Ito’s definition of beyond all reasonable doubt or trying to figure out my stance on everything, let me point out I’m just trying to answer the OP’s question as to how atleast one of the jurors feels today. ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/34 "2006-11-22T10:51:02Z")
[QUOTE=WonJohnSoup] I remember watching an interview with one of the OJ jurors a few months ago. He was a black male. He clearly said he believed that OJ probably did it. Straight out, no sidestepping or qualifiers. He just didn’t feel the prosecution presented a strong enough case to reach a guilty verdict. [/QUOTE] And, therefore, this shows the system working at its best, rather than its worst. Better that 10 guilty men go free, than… ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/35 "2006-11-22T11:11:44Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] The problem is that most legal analysts, including other prosecutors, said that the evidence and testimony given in the Simpson case was some of the most persuasive evidence they had ever seen in a homicide trial. [/QUOTE] Surely that is hyperbole. While I have no doubt about Simpson’s guilt I am pretty sure that all of the cases with truly “some of the most persuasive evidence they had ever seen in a homicide trial” resulted in convictions. I would be pretty certain that wrongful convictions based on flimsy evidence ar far more common than wrongful acquitals on rock solid evidence. The evidence in the Simpson case was all circumstantial and presented in a way that was so uncompelling that I would have bet my life on Simpson’s acquital rather than his conviction. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/36 "2006-11-22T13:29:31Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] [The jury in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Jurypage.html). None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows. Nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete. [/QUOTE] Less likely than what? It’s certainly a reasonable to think that professional athletes are statistically less likely to commit murders than, say, professional hitmen. It may even be reasonable to think that professional athletes (who tend to be highly paid) are less likely to commit murders than your average citizen, given that many murders have a financial motive. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/37 "2006-11-22T14:09:46Z")
[QUOTE=don’t ask] Surely that is hyperbole. While I have no doubt about Simpson’s guilt I am pretty sure that all of the cases with truly “some of the most persuasive evidence they had ever seen in a homicide trial” resulted in convictions. I would be pretty certain that wrongful convictions based on flimsy evidence ar far more common than wrongful acquitals on rock solid evidence. The evidence in the Simpson case was all circumstantial and presented in a way that was so uncompelling that I would have bet my life on Simpson’s acquital rather than his conviction. [/QUOTE] You use the word circumstantial as if it is a bad thing. Almost all evidence is circumstantial. Most cases are built on circumstantial evidence. It holds equal weight with any other evidence. In fact eyewitness evidence is a much worse basis to go forward with on a case since a good defense attorney can pick apart just about any untrained witness. The OJ case had a tremendous ammount of circumstantial evidence that all pointed to Simpson being the killer. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/38 "2006-11-22T16:33:09Z")
[QUOTE=BrassyPhrase] Realize we all sit here Monday Morning Quaterbacking, and we all did during the trial OJ was so guilty to us (people watching) but wasn’t the jury sequestered? They allegedly (I know I spelled that wrong) were working from just the admitted evidence. It may have looked different there. [/QUOTE] And while many posters have speculated in this thread about what the members of the jury were thinking, better to let the sources speak for themselves. At least five of the jurors [wrote books](http://www.amazon.com/Madam-Foreman-Judgement-Armanda-Cooley/dp/0787109185/) , and I believe that most (perhaps all) of the others have given lengthy interviews, including the alternates and [jurors who were dismissed](http://www.amazon.com/Mistrial-Century-Private-Diary-System/dp/0787106879/) mid trial. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/39 "2006-11-22T16:50:10Z")
[QUOTE=don’t ask] The evidence in the Simpson case was all circumstantial and presented in a way that was so uncompelling that I would have bet my life on Simpson’s acquital rather than his conviction. [/QUOTE] **Loach** is right. Circumstantial evidence is just as good, and many times better than eyewitness. I suggest you check out the book Outrage by Vincent Bugloisi to get the whole story on how the DA’s office screwed the pooch on this one. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2006, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341/40 "2006-11-22T16:59:13Z")
Has anyone considered that jurors are human, and cannot cope with information overload? I remember the trial, and the defence’s MO was to dredge up all kinds of irrlevant information-they even succeeded in putting LA Police captain Mark Furman on trial. The mere fact that these poor people had to sit through hundreds of hours on mostly irrelevant nonsense meant that the oputcome would be in doubt. Why can’t judges enforce some time limits? After I’ve heard the defence’s DNA expert, and the prosecution’s DNA expert, and the rebuttals, and the counter-claims, it all starts to get VERY difficult. if you add in the fact that most of the jurors were of limited intellectual capabilities, then you have some serious problems. would such a farce been allowed in a German or French courtroom? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-j-jurors-feelings-today/381341.md?page=3)