I don’t want to hijack the thread, so perhaps we should agree to disagree on this point. I hold that the Blake case was much weaker than the Simpson case, and that Blake’s acquittal was just.
Yes, it is. That said, do you disagree that, all else being equal, sex crimes are much more difficult to get a conviction on than murder or other violent crimes? To the degree that the celebrity conviction rate and the non-celebrity conviction rate would both be quite low?
Well, here we are then. I don’t know how to get past that fundamental difference.
Only if the idea of a massive LAPD conspiracy constitutes reasonable doubt.
Judge Ito could have prevented the defense from questioning Fuhrman on use of the n-word, for example. A pre-trial hearing was held on the matter, and he ruled that section 352 did not apply.
I’d claim that Fuhrman had not likely planted evidence before, and that further, the case, in total, had it been presented competently, easily met the burden of reasonable doubt.
The answer to your question is: A man who was distraught about his ex-wife for whom he still had feelings being savagely murdered, and who also knew that that as a successful black man there was a very good chance that the police department would accuse and frame him for the murder.
Note that I’m not saying this is actually plausible. But I think that jury would have found it plausible. Also, possibly, a federal judge.
Yes, I agree. That has been my point this whole time. Furthermore, you seem to be getting all bent out of shape because I would give the prosecution in OJ’s case a C- instead of an F.
I should have been more clear. I am not talking about a court of law here. Particularly since those things were not specifically alleged in a court of law AFAIK.
Why would he do that? It was clearly relevant.
Then why didn’t he swear that under oath? What reason would he have to plead the 5th? Honestly, OJ clearly murdered those people, but it’s also pretty clear Fuhrman was a huge scumbag who planted evidence before.
Exactly. It’s always easy to see all the errors and mistakes AFTER the fact. The fact is that nobody thought Clarke and Darden were such shitty lawyers in general that they shouldn’t be allowed to try the case. Just consider how many experts thought OJ would be acquitted right before the verdict was announced. If it was so blindingly obvious that they prosecution didn’t do their job, why were people so shocked OJ got off? Please answer that. Given that we saw exactly what happened in real time, why didn’t the expects foresee the outcome if the verdict was considered just?
Were Clarke and company criticized throughout? Yes. But nobody thought they were doing the tragically poor job they are NOW accused of doing. Just like it seem obvious now that Obama would beat Hillary, McCain, and Romney. It’s one thing to look back to see WHY things happened as they did, but it’s completely unfair to act as though the outcome was obvious, and solely due to one factor.
It’s surely plausible to some percentage of the population, but I don’t think it’s plausible to a reasonable person. It still should have been introduced, how could it have hurt the prosectution?
Fair enough. Both views have merit, I’m sure.
Yes, but it’s another example of incompetence.
I was agreeing that it’s a strict-liability crime.
That’s been your point? How does the Simpson case illustrate your point?
I don’t know tht I’m bent out of shape, but yes, I believe strongly that they earned an F.
Oh, I see. Withdrawn.
It has to be revelant, AND the probative value must outweigh a “substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” The prosecution argued that the topic would inflame the jury’s emotions and blind them to facts. Here’s Darden during the hearing I spoke of:
So, that’s the essence of the arguement.
How should I know? At that point in the trial Fuhrman had been ruthlessly attacked by the defense, abandoned by the prosecution, and made a pariah in the media. Perhaps he was just bitter and wanted no part of proceedings (he took the 5th three times in the same examination). Without some evidence of the planting, I don’t find it credible, and even if I did, the case is still strong enough to convict.
Because the case was so open-and-shut, so obvious on its face, that it should have been able to overcome the prosecution’s bungling. Sadly, the jury was also deficient, though I don’t blame them as much as others do, like ralph124c. People were shocked that it was POSSIBLE to lose this case.
Nitpick: that quote is from the Federal Rules of Evidence. In California, the rule is substantially similar but phrased differently and combined with the federal rule about cumulative evidence:
[QUOTE=F-P]
Also, possibly, a federal judge.
[/QUOTE]
It was a California state court judge. Again, minor nitpick.
I linked to and quoted the California statute in post 121, but I truncated it when re-quoting it in post 127. Good catch, I should have re-quoted it in full.
Because despite the poor job the prosecution did, there was still a great deal more than enough evidence presented to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ Simpson murdered two people. The amount of evidence against him was overwhelming, but made much, much worse by their presentation (or non-presentation in some cases) of that evidence.
Again, they were heavily criticized during the trial for the bad job they were doing. But many people, myself included, figured that the evidence was sufficient, despite the poor prosecution job, to prove the case. That’s why I continue to blame not just the prosecution, but also the judge and jury for acquitting OJ Simpson.
Are there any laws about not torturing jurors? If you were stuck in a jury like OJ Simpson’s, you were confined for long periods of time, and subjected to long boring arguments, most of which were calculated to confuse you. Making a decision based on the facts would be very difficult (IMO), after such an ordeal. Are there limits on how long jurors can legally be imprisoned for?
Since they’re not actually being imprisoned or tortured, no, there probably aren’t.
It couldn’t. The Sixth Amendment begins “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Nothing about the rights of jurors there. And there’s nothing about the speed of the trial. It’s about how quickly they are brought to trial so they are not imprisoned indefinitely.
I agree. How many times in your life have you accidentally cut yourself so bad that you dripped blood from your car to your house and up the stairs?
Did it happen on the same night and close to the same time that your ex-wife, or anyone else you are connected with was murdered?
Was there blood all over the interior of your car that same night?
To me, those three things right there start to approach reasonable doubt or else you are one unlucky bastard.
When you throw in the DNA, the glove, the shoe print, etc., its a slam dunk. The prosecution let themselves get bogged down in the question of Fuhrman’s racism which was totally irrelevant for the reasons mentioned in this thread. Ito shouldn’t have even allowed it, but when he did, they should have shrugged it off.
Fuhrman couldn’t have frame OJ even if he wanted to. More than ten other cops were there before him. They would have had to have been in on it. Plus, who’s to say that OJ and Leslie Neilsen weren’t promoting Naked Gun 44 1/4 at that time in front of 2,000 people?
The whole domestic violence angle was overkill as well. Mention it and move on. Tens of thousands of guys are arrested for DV who don’t subsequently murder their wives/girlfriends. Just keep hitting on the obvious points of a guy with blood all over his house and car the same night his ex-wife is brutally murdered.
Not to mention that when OJ Simpson was initially interviewed he said he’d cut his finger, but he couldn’t remember how declaring “I bleed all the time”.
Moreover, it was pointed out that the particular brand of the gloves in that particular size were really rare and extremely expensive. Very few of them had been sold. Something like only a few hundred IIRC. Of course the prosecution produced a credit card receipt showing that either OJ or Nicole(I can’t remember who) had purchased a set of that brand and that size gloves.
In short for OJ to be innocent we’d have to believe that he somehow cut himself so badly he bled all over his car, his clothes and his room but completely forgot how he was cut the same night his wife was killed by either someone who A)was by the most amazing of coincidences one of he few hundred other people on the planet to own a pair of those gloves or B) was the victim of some massive conspiracy which involved people stealing one of his gloves to frame him.
Once the detective on the case tells you that he fears being prosecuted if he truthfully answers whether he has ever planted evidence, why does it need any sort of conspiracy beyond that one detective, who has admitted that he has something to hide regarding planting evidence to obtain convictions?
Because that one detective had nothing to do with the mountain of other evidence that proved Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You and the jury decided because you thought one witness out of 150 was a bad guy, why then you didn’t have to consider any other evidence whatsoever and you could ignore the mountain of other evidence that proved him guilty. That’s not how it is supposed to work.
