I hope you’re aware that you’re not rebutting any claim I made.
Had I been a juror, I’d have been more inclined to acquit Simpson, despite the strong evidence against him, if a plausible alternative murder scenario had been proposed.
Sure, but Simpson was not in any way required to offer one. It’s the prosecution’s job to demonstrate that one doesn’t exist.
There’s a logic to that, but the defense isn’t required to present another theory about what happened. They can if they think it’ll help their client, and in the Simpson trial the defense did propose alternate explanations for some of the facts in the case. But in a lot of cases it’s not reasonable to expect the defendant to come up with another theory- O.J. was rich, but most defendants don’t have the kind of resources the government does to prosecute a case.
You wouldn’t have heard much of the strongest evidence. Of the prosecution’s many sins, the most grievous was how much evidence the jury never heard.
When I served on a jury, someone asked the judge what “reasonable doubt” meant. He said it meant a doubt that you had a specific reason for. No percentage was given.
Furthermore, if one wished to reform the legal system due to the miscarriage of justice that was OJ Simpson’s acquittal, the standard of evidence seems like an odd choice, since it had little or nothing to do with the result.
I don’t think our system needs much fundamental reform, but if the Simpson trial pointed to one, it’d probably be the inability to correct a “bad” acquittal. There are any number of reasons to overturn or set aside a bad conviction, but if you end up with an absurd acquittal due to an inept prosecution, with evidence that any randomly-selected team of prosecutors could get a conviction on 99% of the time, there is no remedy (that I am aware of, IANAL).
So, pchaos, how about an appeal process for a double-jeopardy exception, in the event of monstrously incompetent prosecution?
People pretty much unanimously agree the appellate process for criminal matters (certainly for capital cases) takes too long already. If the state can also appeal on the grounds that its counsel was incompetent, it will take centuries.
Bear in mind that the state exercises complete control over its counsel, while a criminal defendant may or may not.
Do you know the difference between arrest and conviction, or jail and prison?
If you believed that OJ did it beyond a reasonable doubt, then OJ should be found guilty.
It really doesn’t matter whether the prosecution did a good job or not.
That’s true. However, it’s impossible to say that OJ did it beyond a reasonable doubt, because prosecutorial/investigatory misconduct is a priori cause for reasonable doubt.
The prosecution’s job is to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It matters if they do a good job of making their case.
Sure. The OP seems to view the OJ Simpson case as evidence of flaws in the criminal justice system. I think the flaw pchaos is trying to articulate, that the standard of evidence is too strict, is in fact, not a flaw at all. There seems to be universal agreement on this point.
I wouldn’t necessarily support the appeal of an acquittal either, but the lack of same is closer to a flaw than the standard of evidence, in my mind, and certainly more germaine to the OJ Simpson case.
But the mechanism for him to have been found guilty depends on a good, or at least mediocre, performance by the prosecution. They must convince the jury that the accused is guilty of the crime in question, beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to do so, a conviction is unlikely.
Can you detail the changes our system needs?
You know I won the office poll on the OJ case, I was the only one who said the jury would acquit. If I were on the jury I could not vote to convict because the State utterly failed to prove their case, I was able to watch about 80% of the trial. The moment that sealed it for me was when OJ could not fit the “glove” on his hand, another in a series of incredibly stupid moves by the prosecution. Then you have a police detective blatantly lying on the stand, serious questions about the chain of evidence etc. Sometimes I actually wonder if he is innocent but the feeling passes quickly. The point is there were many reasonable doubts no juror of good conscience could have voted for conviction. Did a guilty man go free, yes probably. If OJ was poor would he have been convicted, yes probably. That has very little to do with anything though, the prosecution failed to do their job and that is the result. I cannot imagine you would want to live in a place where the prosecutor says “that’s him he did it” and the jury says “ok” you would have even more gross miscarriages of justice. This is why we don’t try people in the media
BTW I won about $300 in the pool
Capt
It’s easy to judge the jury in the OJ case based on the overload of information provided by the media to the public. The jurors didn’t see most of that. What they saw was a disjointed presentation by the prosecution where several key points were refuted by the defense and the credibility of prosecution witnesses was questionable. The poor quality of the prosecution was seen through the eyes of the jurors who were understandably unconvinced. And let’s not forget the judge in the case either. The entire case was out of control, and it was the judge’s fault. He disregarded the needs of justice entirely. Jurors cannot be expected to believe the state has proven guilt when they can’t even provide a coherent sense of a trial.
You could build a decent case using just evidence the prosecution never introduced: the note Simpson left before fleeing; the cash, passport, disguise kit, and changes of clothing Simpson fled with; the initial police interview in which Simpson admits to cutting his finger on the night of the murders.
It was the Prosecutor’s job to convince the jury. It certainly matters .
(An O.J. thread that isn’t a zombie. I have to say, I thought I’d opened up a very old thread.)
You are assuming that some or all of this stuff was actually admissible.
It’s been a few years since I’ve read Outrage, but it’s my understanding that it was. The amount of evidence not used by the prosecution, and the inept way they selected and introduced what they did use, is a key part of Bugliosi’s analysis of the trial.