I need help on OJ's case

11/22/2006 | color_tear

[AnAmericanMother]

This IS the best system in the world, but it's not perfect. And prosecutors make mistakes.

The number one mistake was the head D.A. (Garcetti?) consenting to a change of venue to LA Central. O.J. wasn't tried by a jury of his peers, he was tried by a bunch of racists who didn't want to see "the man" get a famous black guy (despite the fact that O.J. has spent his entire life trying to be white.) That was the D.A.'s fault.

Also drew a bad judge who didn't control his courtroom and rein in the crazy defense lawyers who were playing the race card for all it was worth, plus a team of not-too-competent ADAs who botched the presentation of their case. Combine that with a jury that was too stupid to understand the evidence and had no intention of convicting from the get go, and you have a guilty man going free.

All those things went wrong at once. Doesn't happen that often, happens more often in high profile cases where the defendant has money to throw around like water. No human system is perfect, this one is as good as it gets, but it presumes competent participants.

[Joe 6-pack]

"We need what the Scots have - "Not Proven". That would clarify the verdict better than a "Not Guilt" verdict."

Sounds like a great project. Arlen Specter could be your point man. He did such a bang up job on the Warren Commission, after all.

[Red Badger]

A prosecutor has to convince 12, a defense attorney, just 1........

[GoLightly]

Jury nullification has a long & ugly history in our nation. Think back to the day when "all white juries" ruled that those charged with lynching were innocent.

[graf008]

Well, that was a dumb spot where he used it. But it has applicability here...

[AnAmericanMother]

What you said.

[Stark_GOP]

The jury found OJ not guilty based on the evidence presented during the criminal case. He was not found innocent, just not guilty.
He was found guilty in a wrongful death civil case which has a lower thresehold for a finding a guilt.

[MplsSteve]

There's a theory in the legal community. It's called jury nullification".

Basically, you get anywhere from one to 4 jurors who say "Screw the evidence. This guy is not guilty".

It seems as though the jurors most likely to commit nullification are minorities. In OJ's case, I believe it was several black jurors who said that he didn't do it. And nothing was gonna change their mind.

This was their way of sticking it to "The Man" or "Whitey".

[frogjerk]

William Bodziack, an FBI agent and one of the country's most foremost experts on shoe print impressions, testified that the prints were left by Bruno Magli shoes, style Lorenzo, incorporating a Silga sole with a waffle-type print. The footwear, manufactured in Italy, retailed for $160 per pair and was sold by only 40 retailers across America. In all, only 300 pairs of size 12 (Simpson's size) were ever sold. Only 9% of the population wore size 12. Simpson had denied ever owing a pair, calling them, "ugly-ass shoes."

However, on September 26th, 1993, AP photographer Harry Scull Jr. had taken pictures of Simpson wearing these exact shoes at the Rich Stadium in New York. It didn't seem to impress the jury.

From http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/hairs_14.html

[John Lenin]

Responsible, guilty. Same difference if you ask me.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

So the fact that he is writing a book with the working title "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened" doesn't raise reasonable doubt about his innocence to you?

[bigfootbob]

my bad.

[bigfootbob]

wordsmith. ;)

[Oberon]

The jury verdict is not a measure of whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. Rather, it indicates whether the prosecutor has proven the defendant guilty, or failed to prove the defendant guilty.

So if a defendant is found "not guilty," it means that the prosecutor didn't prove his case. The defendant may still be guilty as sin; he just can't be convicted at trial.

[O Neill]

First, you must understand the legal definition of Murder: a homicide committed with malice and without justification or excuse. The standard of proof in a criminal case is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. OJ was found Not Guilty of Murder in the criminal case.

The standard of proof in a Civil case is different...and much lower: 'to a preponderance of the evidence. On THAT standard of proof, which essentially means 51% probable, the Civil jury found OJ to be Liable for causing the homicides.

The OJ Criminal jury was given plenty of 'reasonable doubt' by highly-paid lawyers. The Police may have planted the evidence, they said. Detective Fuhrman is a racist, providing the motive for setting-up OJ. The LAPD Crime Lab contaminated the evidence--perhaps intentionally--to pin the crime on OJ.

Overall, the System (Criminal & Civil combined) may not have performed so badly as a casual observer might, at first glance, surmise. Nothing coming from the Courtroom, however, could ever restore Nicole & Ron to life. For that sort of justice, you must look to God...

[marinamuffy]

"We need what the Scots have - "Not Proven". "

Arlen? That you? ;)

[JRios1968]

I agree on principle...but the legal aspect is very touchy. You can be held responsible, even if you didn't actually pull a trigger (or decapitate 2 people,) just like you can be guilty of committing the act but not responsible.

I spent quite a few hours debating this with my baby sister, who is a lawyer.

[bondjamesbond]

We need what the Scots have - "Not Proven".

Thank you Senator Specter.

"It is better that one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." - Benjamin Franklin

[Not now, Not ever!]

"DNA don't mean nuffin...lotsa peoples gots the same blood type": --verbatim quote from one of the jurors.

"Where do we go to get deliberated?" another quote.

[GeorgiaDawg32]

from what I remember, the prosecution had OJ try on the glove because had they not, cochran would have..they tried to pre-empt cochrans move and prove the glove fit..I don't remember the name of the attorney (the one that prosecuted manson), but he insists to this day the glove DID fit based on it being wet, then dried out..and I believe he said, although I could be wrong, that they should have gotten a pair of gloves that DID fit OJ, get them wet and dry them, THEN have OJ try the gloves on..it would have proved the glove DID fit since it DIDN'T fit in the same manner..

but, I've been known to be wrong before..