Or, and I could be going out on a limb here, it had to do with the actual evidence in both cases. Perhaps it’s the fact that the Blake case was circumstantial, whereas the prosecution had a boatload of evidence against OJ. God forbid the difference between the two trials comes down to evidence.
I’m not sure you’re responding to me, but since I said sleazy, I’ll asume that I need to clarify. As I said, I have no problem with Cochran and his role in the OJ trial. He did what he was supposed to do. The system is set up so that sleazy lawyer tricks are necessary, on both sides. He got a man who was clearly a murderer off. He was supposed to. Why would I hold someone doing their job well against them? I don’t. “Sleazy” isn’t a condemnation of Cochran, it’s a commentary on the nature of the job.
I never said he was likeable, just that doing his job means doing everything he can for his client that is allowed within the Canon of Ethics. There were reports that OJ had told his team that he had killed Ronald and Nicole; if that were so, and if Cochran had’nt told the judge, then there would be a basis for an ethics hearing. I haven’t seen any hard evidence that Cocharn knowingly violated the Canon of Ethics.
I do think that the large share of the blame goes to Darden and Clark; if they had done their jobs properly, Cochran would have lost, or at least would have had to work harder to get his client off the hook.
All this honky knows is that, when I’m standing at the Pearly Gates, if Clarence Darrow isn’t available I want Johnnie Cochran as my lawyer. The man was a hell of a defense attorney.
No, because they preyed upon the fear, hatred, and prejudice of the jury rather than the evidence. Because they called for the jury to “send a message” rather than decide on the evidence. Because their grandstanding throughout the trial and after the verdict. Because of their constant shit slinging.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s also plenty to dislike about everyone involved, most importantly Simpson. But just because everyone else is hated, doesn’t let Cochran off the hook.
Sorry but in my naive rose-tinted world, defense lawyers who know their clients are guilty should never, ever, get their clients acquitted; they should only make sure their clients aren’t being railroaded, that their rights are protected; nothing more.
So basically, yeah, they should have done a shit job.
When did they prey on fear, hatred and prejudice? Which part of the defense did that? The only thing I can think of is when they put Mark Furhman on the stand.
The defence put Mark Furhman on the stand and the defense is preying on hatred? The defense comes into posession of tapes of one of the decectives on the case confessing to evidence tampering because it’s easier to catch the niggers that way and not only should the defense sit on these tapes, they are feeding on the prejudice of the jury by entering them as evidence?
What the holy fuck?
The holy fuck was how Enkidu was civilized.
…what
Hamlet, I don’t know if you in particular feel this way.
But some people got so up-in-arms about this, and always claimed it was just that angle.
People were SO OUTRAGED because a lawyer preyed upon fear, hated and prejudice of the jury. Sure, they were.
Lawyers on one side have been preying on fear, prejudice and hatred since we set the system up. I don’t know if anyone’s keeping score, but I’d guess by now it’s about
Whites: 3,234,023
Blacks: 1
All of a sudden, it just happens to be a trial where a black guy gets away with killing a white woman and we’re all just mad at the system. It’s got nothing to do with race.
.
Wasn’t Cochran part of a group that group that got people off death row when later DNA evidence showed them to be innocent? Regardless what happened with OJ, if he got at least one innocent person free from death row that puts him on the positive side in my karma book, since I think executing an innocent is worse than a guilty person going free.
You can’t be serious! “Whitey owes us this one” WTF kind of ignorant, racist bullshit is that?.
Unclviny (who naively thinks trials are about Justice)
That was Messrs. Scheck and Neufeld of The Innocence Project.
Yeah. You got me. That’s exactly what I was saying. Your effortless genius has caught me.
When they argued that the jury should send a message to the LAPD and acquit Simpson. When they created an elaborate conspriacy, necessarily involving the destroying of the reputation of at least 9 different police investigators, based on Mark Fuhrman. When they did everything in their power to make sure the jury made their decision based on the race of the defendant and not the evidence presented.
If you’re looking for me to defend Mark Furhman, you’re not gonna get it. He’s a despicable man. The defense tactic was to find the most repellant person working on the case, dirty him up as much as possible (possible deservedly), and keep hounding on him to the jury.
And thanks for the chuckle Trunk. Following up:
with
was worth a laugh.
Cochran has done a lot of good for a lot of people. His work in the Louima case, and other, lesser known police brutality cases, are evidence of that. But his paying of Al Sharpton’s libel judgment and his handling of the Simpson case are not so much. He’s just like most people… flawed.
C’mon, give the OP a break. What could be pettier than correcting her spelling of “y’all”?
By the way, I think it’s “judicial system”, not “judiciary system”. 
Next time I’ll add the :rolleyes: so you can follow along.
Better yet, next time make a coherent, intelligent point. I find those kinds of posts much easier to follow along with.
I never said, “whitey owes us one”.
I said that the notion that the anger at the verdict was because of problems in the legal system and not because of race was ridiculous.
Those same problems in the legal system have existed forever. Whitey just never cared till it bit him in the ass.
You think OJ was the first trial that a lawyer used the jurors prejudices to influence the verdict?
Defense lawyers don’t “get their clients acquitted,” they hold the prosecution to their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the trier of fact (i.e. the judge or jury) believes the state hasn’t met its burden, they acquit the defendant. The defense attorney’s personal “belief” in the client’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant, except as it applies to the defendant possibly committing perjury.
Say that the defense attorney knows in his heart of hearts that his client is guilty as hell. However, the prosecution’s case is weak and there is very little admissible evidence against his client. Should the defense attorney fail to point out the holes in the prosecution’s case becasue it may result in an acquittal, and just roll over on his client? If you answer is no, why should it matter in a case in which the evidence is strong?
If you believe in the Constitution, it doesn’t matter.
Even if you’re guilty as Judas Iscariot, the state has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and you have the right to a lawyer who makes sure that they do.
Johnny Cochran helped free a man who was wwrongly imprisoned for 27 years for a murder he didn’t commit. He also helped Reginald Denny, the white truck driver who got dragged out of his vehicle and beaten on live TV during the L.A. riots.
Why don’t people talk about those cases instead of O.J. simpson?
The law is about justice. Trials are about what you can prove, and the State couldn’t prove shit because they did a bad, bad job of lawyering. Of the two sides of that case, Cochrane’s wasn’t the one that made me ashamed of my (then-future) profession.
–Cliffy