# Will a judge throw the book at OJ because of who he is? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 18, 2007, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565 "2007-09-18T01:30:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/41 "2007-09-21T12:35:43Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] **Wrong again.** It is _you_ who owe _me_ an apology for evading so many of my questions. You also owe me an apology for either not reading the intervening posts or outright ignoring them. Please try again. Please specify for me which of your “many” questions I have evaded and please apologize for: 1. telling me my logic is “deeply flawed” when I asserted that Fuhrman could have “planted the glove” while you repeated over and over that it was impssible for him to do so, only to then say in post #37 that it was possible; 2. telling me that there was no way for the jury to “legally” refuse to convict O.J. based on a specific piece of evidence only and then failing to address the fact that they can. perfectly legally as I pointed out, vote their conscience regardless of the evidence; 3. for telling me that you agree with Martin Hyde’s post that I must in fact be mistaken on the issue of exigent circumstances since the police had O.J.'s suicide note as a reason to enter, even though that note was not yet written; 4. for repeatedly saying that I was telling falsehoods and my arguments are completely worthless without ever addressing the substance. As to your question what was the person Kato heard doing near the air conditioner if he was not “trying to hide evidence” I don’t know. First of all I don’t know if Kato heard anyone, just that he thought he did. Second Kato never said he heard someone hiding evidence. Third O.J may be a complete idiot and a sociopath and guilty of a double homicide but you are the first person in history to suggest that he hid one bloody glove, in plain sight, on his own property, after leaving the other at the scene of the crime. How extraordinarily ingenious of him. Any idea as to his motive? And if Fuhrman did plant the glove as you now admit he could have, do you really think it is ok to plant it at O.J’s after taking it from the scene of the crime because it is real evidence? ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/42 "2007-09-21T12:44:24Z")
[QUOTE=denquixote] [QUOTE=ambushed] **Wrong again.** It is _you_ who owe _me_ an apology for evading so many of my questions. You also owe me an apology for either not reading the intervening posts or outright ignoring them. Please try again." Please specify for me which of your “many” questions I have evaded and please apologize for: 1. telling me my logic is “deeply flawed” when I asserted that Fuhrman could have “planted the glove” while you repeated over and over that it was impssible for him to do so, only to then say in post #37 that it was possible; 2. telling me that there was no way for the jury to “legally” refuse to convict O.J. based on a specific piece of evidence only and then failing to address the fact that they can. perfectly legally as I pointed out, vote their conscience regardless of the evidence; 3. for telling me that you agree with Martin Hyde’s post that I must in fact be mistaken on the issue of exigent circumstances since the police had O.J.'s suicide note as a reason to enter, even though that note was not yet written; 4. for repeatedly saying that I was telling falsehoods and my arguments are completely worthless without ever addressing the substance. As to your question what was the person Kato heard doing near the air conditioner if he was not “trying to hide evidence” I don’t know. First of all I don’t know if Kato heard anyone, just that he thought he did. Second Kato never said he heard someone hiding evidence. Third O.J may be a complete idiot and a sociopath and guilty of a double homicide but you are the first person in history to suggest that he hid one bloody glove, in plain sight, on his own property, after leaving the other at the scene of the crime. How extraordinarily ingenious of him. Any idea as to his motive? And if Fuhrman did plant the glove as you now admit he could have, do you really think it is ok to plant it at O.J’s after taking it from the scene of the crime because it is “genuine evidence?” ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/43 "2007-09-21T13:27:20Z")
[QUOTE=denquixote] You have been wrong about so much this is like shooting fish in a barrel. [/quote] I see. So you haven’t made plenty of errors yourself, my fishy friend? [QUOTE=denquixote] I would assume you are able to show that Lance Ito instructed the jury not to consider Detective Fuhrman’s veracity when considering O.J.'s guilt. Please tell me where he said that. When you are unable to do so I will again accept your apology. [/quote] WTF? What, are you in some kind of time warp or something? Why the hell don’t you read my intervening posts? You’re way behind the curve. Please review my earlier post in which I clarified the issue thusly: > [@ambushed](#): > > > [@denquixote](#): > > > > By the way do you have a cite for your statement that the jury cannot convict based on the fact that one officer may have been a lying racist? No it is your opinion, but you express your opinions as facts, which they are not. > > First, I did not say that they couldn’t do it at all, I said they couldn’t do it _legally_. > > All emphasis in the below is mine: > > [Quote=Judge Ito’s Jury Instructions] > > You must **not** be influenced by mere sentiment, **conjecture** , sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or public feeling. > … > You must decide all questions of fact in this case from the evidence received **here in court in this trial and not from any other source.** > … > Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the **entire comparison and consideration** of **all** the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. [/quote] Thus, we see that it would indeed be contrary to law – a violation of the jury instructions – to decide the case on the grounds that Fuhrman was a racist, trivially perjurious cop. They only way they could have legally done so is if **NO** other evidence established O.J.'s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that was most emphatically **not** the case. [QUOTE=denquixote] As to the wrong decision by Ito, it was clear from my post that i was referring to his decision to accept the detective’s testimony that it was exigent circumstances that caused them to enter O.J.'s grounds and not a search for the “suspect” or to find evidence. [/quote] I repeat: It was not “wrong” in the least tiny bit… > [@](#): > > Under the emergency aid, or medical emergency, doctrine, law enforcement officers may enter a dwelling without a warrant. The emergency aid doctrine strikes a balance between the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment and the interests of government to access a dwelling to safeguard the well-being of citizens. The doctrine permits police to make "warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid … [because] ‘[t]he need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’ " Mincey, 437 U.S. at 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408 (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963)); see also State v. Frankel, 179 N.J. 586, 847 A.2d 561, 568 (2004) Since the burden of proof here belongs to you, **you** cite the case law that would deny the cops’ emergency exigent access under the circumstances in question. **You** cite the case law that would bar admittance of the evidence found during that emergency exigent search. Otherwise, we must conclude that Ito ruled correctly. [QUOTE=denquixote] The fact that Martin Hyde thinks I might have been referring to another decision because he has his facts wrong and has not seen fit to return and apologize should speak for itself. [/quote] Hey, insult **Martin Hyde** on your own time. Take it up with him, but be prepared to have your ass handed to you (very politely, of course). [QUOTE=denquixote] The fact that you think there was an urgent reason for the cops to enter does not mean that your urgent reason is what motivated them. [/quote] And it doesn’t mean it’s _not_, either, says the gander to the goose. Isn’t that _your_ line? [QUOTE=denquixote] It is only their motivation which is relevant, not the motivation of the reasonable person. [/quote] First, I tend to doubt that, since the “reasonable person” standard seems tailor-made for this issue, but IANAL. But more importantly, it would be impossible to prove “motivation” one way or the other. It seems to me that there can be no other way for a judge to reach a decision on that except on whether or not a “reasonable person” would agree that exigent circumstances were present in that situation. [QUOTE=denquixote] As to whether the jury can legally refuse to convict (I believe the mistake in the original quote is mine, but we both know I meant refuse to convict and not convict) based on a particular element of the case, you are wrong. [/quote] No, **you** are wrong once again in that you continue to misrepresent my statements. I certainly wish you would stop that (and an apology would be nice, seeing as you’re so demanding of them from others). See above on this issue. [QUOTE=denquixote] There is a legitimate legal concept known as jury nullification, a concept about which a judge is usually not permitted to speak to the jury when giving his instructions and thus Ito did not so inform the jury in spite of the detailed instructions that he did give. Jury nullification allows the jury to vote its conscience regardless of facts, evidence or legal instructions. The concept dates to the 18th century and was first upheld in the “Zenger” case. This is the reason that the jury decision stands whether or not you find it logical and whether or not you approve of the concept. [/quote] This is not news to me, and in any case is utterly irrelevant here, since the jury did _not_ “nullify”. Can we limit our discussion to the case at hand, please? [QUOTE=denquixote] I agree, if kato was telling the truth (an issue for the jury - his credibility) that the likelihood of Fuhrman finding the glove in just the right place argues against his having planted it. This does not mean he did not plant it or that a reasonable jury could not have believed the defense’s arguments. Let’s leave it at that. [/QUOTE] No. In some aspects of this debate, we have been discussing the nature or application of the law. In others, such as this one, we are talking about facts independent of legal interpretations or rules of evidence. Here, facts and logic rule. Here, Kato heard the thumping. Here, if Kato were inclined to lie about the thumping, he would have _omitted_ this information or denied it at trial, since insisting upon this fact was directly contrary to his friend O.J.'s interests. In the world of fact and logic, Fuhrman could not **possibly** have manufactured or contrived the evidence on the bloody glove. In the world of fact and logic, Fuhrman could not **possibly** have known to “plant” it right where Kato heard the thumping long before Furhman or any other cop was on the scene. In the world of fact and logic, O.J. Simpson could not **possibly** have been factually innocent of this brutal double murder. ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/44 "2007-09-21T13:51:50Z")
What you don’t know would fill a book and I don’t have time to write one. Nice talking to you. ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/45 "2007-09-21T15:00:24Z")
From the Boalt Hall (University of California) Journal of Criminal Law Courts consider the level of intrusion itself when determining whether police action was reasonable.[28] This basic reasonableness standard governs warrantless entries made for community caretaking purposes, including intent to render emergency aid.[29] Probable cause and exigent circumstances analysis is not implicated when officers are not motivated by crime-solving intentions.[30] Thus, officer intent at the time of entry is a significant consideration when determining whether the community caretaking exception applies,[31] and courts require officers to act in good faith, meaning that the officer’s entry cannot be a pretext for the investigation of criminal activity.[32] Moreover, the officer’s actions must be objectively reasonable, meaning that he must have a reasonable belief, based on articulable facts, that a person is in need of immediate assistance or protection from harm.[33] ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/46 "2007-09-21T15:05:47Z")
Footnotes to above article: [28] See People v. Davis, 497 N.W.2d 910, 920–21 (Mich. 1993). [29] See State v. Nemeth, 23 P.3d 936, 944 (N.M. App. 2001); see also Ortega v. State, 974 S.W.2d 361, 364 (Tex. App. 1998). [30] Ray, 981 P.2d at 936-37. [31] This differs from the entirely objective determinations of whether probable cause and exigent circumstances existed. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (“Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”) [32]Nemeth, 23 P.3d at 944. [33] Id. ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/47 "2007-09-21T15:29:42Z")
Black’s Law Dictionary definition of jury nullification: a jury’s “knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness." It has nothing to do with nullifying a verdict, it is perfectly legal and totally relevant if you think the jury was not acting on the evidence. I am not saying that jury nullification took place here, I believe the jury interpreted all of the evidence and came to a dubious but arguably correct conclusion. But they were nevertheless entitled to vote their conscience if they so chose. contrary to what you asserted when you said they could not “legally refuse to convict blah blah blah.” ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/48 "2007-09-21T15:31:35Z")
The answer to that question is probably no. That said, will there be boatloads of people crapping their pants if the judge doesn’t throw the book at OJ? The answer to that question is probably yes. ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2007, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/49 "2007-09-21T15:32:15Z")
When you say the jury did not “nullify” I assumed you said that because you did not know what the term meant. However if you have some personal knowledge regarding the deliberations please enlighten us (actually I am sure it is only me at this point.) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2007, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/50 "2007-09-22T12:15:45Z")
Anybody know if Nevada allows trial by just a judge, or panel of judges, instead of a jury? It would certainly seem Simpson would be better off facing people with training and inclination to focus just on the case in front of them, and with a need to appear to be doing so as well, than people who would feel an obligation to dispense justice to him in a broader sense. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2007, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/51 "2007-09-22T13:00:02Z")
No. 1: why did Judge Ito alow the trial to become the trial of Mark Furman? The whole thing should have been thrown out. No.2: how did OJ clean up the mess from the murders, change his clothes, and dispose of the bloody clothes so quickly? I think he had an accomplice. I’m glad OJ will finally face justice. A long jail sentence sounds about right. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2007, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/52 "2007-09-22T13:04:29Z")
No. 1: Ito wanted to be a TV star, not a judge. No 2. OJ was seen handing Cardassian a duffel bag at some point shortly after his arrest. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2007, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/53 "2007-09-22T13:27:48Z")
That would, of course, be spelled “Kardashian”. [Link](http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/10/simpson/index.html): > [@](#): > > Kardashian was the man seen carrying Simpson’s garment bag the day Simpson flew back from Chicago. Prosecutors speculated the bag may have contained Simpson’s bloody clothes and or the murder weapon. But Kardashian says – as he told CNN a year ago – that he took the bag from Simpson’s secretary and doesn’t know what was inside because he never looked. > > He says he tried to give the bag to police at the house, but they refused to take his luggage. “The police could have taken it an at any time,” he said. > > “They never sought to do so, in fact when we turned it in to the court nine months later, they still never did any tests to see if there was blood. I don’t believe they really wanted to know the answer. I think it was better to leave speculation and to let the public think there was something sinister about these bags!” ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2007, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/54 "2007-09-22T15:53:21Z")
there was a story circulating that kardashian tried to hire a hitman to kill nicole six months before the actual murder and that the la da’s office was preparing to prosecute him and o.j. for conspiracy to murder nicole but never did. whether there is any truth to this i have no idea. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2007, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/55 "2007-09-22T16:40:46Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] The evidence was overwhelming, but the prosecution still blew it big time. They should never have allowed the glove trying stunt. I don’t care how well a glove fits, if you try to slide it over a latex surgical glove it isn’t going to work. And how did thy miss the photos which later surfaced of OJ wearing those rare shoes? Maybe if those had been available earlier it would have made a difference. [/QUOTE] IRC, didn’t they order an identical pair of gloves from the same company? I could swear I read an interview with Marcia Clark where she said that Darden was too impatient to wait for the order to arrive, and wanted to have him try on the actual glove at a certain point in the testimony. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2007, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565/56 "2007-09-22T17:58:36Z")
[QUOTE=denquixote] Oh gee, I can’t think of one off the top of my head. Oh wait maybe a lying racist police officer planted it. [/QUOTE] Of course, if Furhman did plant the bloody glove he was the luckiest lying racist police office ever considering: (1) he was the 14th officer on the scenes at Brown-Goldman murder site and was thus lucky that 13 other officers either all overlooked the glove and/or were all equally racist and happy to join Fuhrman in framing OJ; (2) the glove was found at OJ’s before anyone had interviewed him, so Fuhrman was darned lucky OJ did not have an alibi; (3) the glove was found before anyone interviewed Nicole Brown’s neighbors, so Fuhrman was lucky none of them witnessed the real killers arriving or leaving the scene. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-a-judge-throw-the-book-at-oj-because-of-who-he-is/419565.md?page=2)