Saturday, August 26, 2006

The O. J. Simpson Verdict: The Jury Got It Right

Over at Patterico's Pontifications (a really good blog. I would love to know how its author keeps up with while he works as an Assistant District Attorney in a big city)Patterico has been blogging his remembrance of the OJ Simpson trial.

I added a comment and felt I owed it to you guys to post my thoughts here. I am the 52nd note over there but feel free to chime in here or there with your thoughts.:

Given the number of posts and the days since this post went up, I doubt anyone but Mrs. P will even read this.

I was a commentator for Fox in NY as well as other media outlets for the trial. I watched it gavel to gavel. I was one of four national commentators (according to Newsday)to "call" the correct verdict the morning it was to be announced.

It was a long time ago but I agree that venue made the defense job easier. The case was not the white v. Black thing it became after the verdict however. That happened as the case went on.

The problem from the beginning of the case has been outlined by many of the writers above. That the jury may have been more likely to believe police misconduct happened is not dispositive. "The Glove" had an effect on these jurors not on the commentators.
What really sealed it however was the evidence that the LA Police wanted to be sure to get this guy that they would lie and cover up lies to do it.

Jury nullification didn't play a role in the case, the jury didn't think he did it but nullified because of the misconduct. It didn't know and couldn't intelligently decide if he did it because of the obvious police misconduct.

One other point on jury nullification. It would have been appropriate here. The police and the District attorney not only work on behalf of the People of the State, they represent what these people stand for. When police or prosecutors (by the way I believe Clark and Darden for all the BS in this case were talented lawyers doing a good job against other exceptionally talented lawyers, I do not think they lost their case, I think they were beaten by their own witnesses and a top notch crew of attorneys)play the games and lie and fabricate evidence the way the LA Police did in this case, the jury has every right to say whoa this offends our sense of justice and we are not going to stand for it. While I firmly believe that the jury here didn't do this, it could have and it would have received no fault from me.


Chris from Victoria, BC said...

As I remarked on Patterico's blog, "Well said."

That Lawyer Dude said...


yedowicz said...

I think there was a prosecution conspiracy to frame Simpson but Mark Fuhrman was not part of it. If Fuhrman's testimony is read carefully much of it is good for Simpson and in fact points the finger away from Simpson. The 'Fuhrman tapes' and the 'race card' were a red herring.
lem Yedowicz

OJ Simpson
Mark Fuhrman

Anonymous said...

Lem, I agree that Furhman was a help for a whole lot of reasons, but the idea that he was even on this case is just an example of what I am talking about. LAPD should never have let this guy near this mess. He and his general additude cast a juandice eye on the whole force. I have many problems with the case. The alleged four blooddrops on the driveway; Four Homicide cops going over to Simpson's place to "inform him" of his wife's death; the through and through blood drops; Van Atter's handling of the blood vials; The glove (sorry but I think it was moved.)I could go on. None of these things, the blood on the driveway the glove or the sock was needed to convict OJ. They could have done it without this evidence. Instead, in an attempt to guild the lily, they gave the defense a "frame up" defense which given the jury and the venue and all the rest, was enough to acquit.
I am often in a position where clients want to lie. I always tell them the same thing. I can win my case with the facts that are there. I will lose once we lose sight of those facts by trying to add lies and the cover up of same. Looking back at Simpson, I see that there will never be a way to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because we just don't know what were facts and what was made up. Worst yet, if all of it were true, then the sloppy police work and the mistakes they made gave rise to a sufficient view that they made some of the stuff up. You don't have to have a "conspiracy Theory" mind to see that there were errors and ommissions that could lead reasonable minds to differ about A. the truthfullness of the witnesses and B. the presence of a frame up.

That Lawyer Dude said...

I am not sure why, but the last comment is attributed to "Anonymous." I (That Lawyer Dude) posted it however. The words are mine.

yedowicz said...

I think that lawyer dude missed the point of my last comment. If the evidence that Fuhrman gave is read carefully it fits in wirh other evidence to point to other suspects. Fuhrman comes out looking rather good. In fact he should never have been taken off the case.
Read my book 'The Glove' ISBN 1420802011 .