Letting hime speak and paying him to speak are two entirely different things.
Yes, but granting juries the discretion to nullify the law where they see fit is a bedrock principle of our judicial system - and their right to do so has been upheld by the Supreme Court on at least three separate occasions. It's unfortunate that this group chose to carry out an agenda unrelated to the case, but given some of the outrageous examples of prosecutorial misconduct in the news lately, America would be a better place if juries nullified the law a lot more often...or even if they were simply informed that they had the right to.
OJ can speak all he wants, paying him large money to "speak" on Fox during sweeps week was a disgusting idea. The two are not mutually exclusive.
It wouldn't make any difference to those jurors even today. He was a famous black man with a white woman and this was a "mostly" black and female jury and whether they ever admit it or not their decision had as much to do with anger that Nicole was who she was than OJ for doing such a heinous crime.
"Here's the television I really will miss now: the cameras taken into the homes of every one of those twelve willful jurists who sprung O.J. free 12 years ago and made a mockery of the law...."
I think another look at the case is healthy after the 12 year interlude. The outrage was that it was going to be on Orange Juice's terms and with him receiving huge quantities of blood money. But there is no reason the cameras can't go to those 12 jurors, if we know their whereabouts, and based on the title alone, question their verdict and their thinking.
Having watched the trial, the coup de gras was when the hapless bumbling judge allowed all of the irrelevant testimony in about Furhman's past. I can see how it might be hard for a jury to get past felony perjury from one of the first investigators on scene.
The bloody imprint of the size 13 Bruno Mali was such an easily understandable piece of evidence. What a shame it was not discovered until after the criminal verdict.
One thing that bothers me is that the judgment is no longer the 33.5 million they keep talking about. Since that was '97, it's gone up in simple interest by 10 per cent a year. So it's well past $50 million now.
If anyone wants to find out if the judgment was renewed after six years, please let me know. Unless that was done, tens of thousands are lost in interest for the cost of a ten dollar renewal. The reason is, if you renew after six years, you start getting ten per cent simple interest on the renewed amount, not the original amount.
Maybe Goldman;s civil attornies know this; I am curious if they renewed the first day they could, or are waiting for the end of ten years to renew.
I like Krauthammer's reasoning here. Probably he will get his wish: someone, seeing a buck to be made, will print the book.
Krauthammer is wrong on this point. Those people will justify what they did forever. They will tell Saint Peter about how they were right and the system was wrong.
That's some twisted logic: since there remains a greater outrage that we cannot change, we should also tolerate (welcome?) lesser outrages that we CAN change.
I thought Krauthammer was smarter than this.
"...the defense lawyers, not one of whom could have doubted the man's guilt yet who cynically played on the jury's ignorance and latent racism to win a disgraceful verdict;..."
"Here's the television I really will miss now: the cameras taken into the homes of every one of those twelve willful jurists who sprung O.J. free 12 years ago and made a mockery of the law by trying to turn a brutal murderer of two into a racial victim/hero."
Little known fact: the most educated member of the jury had a GED. The rest did not even have that much education. That case was lost during jury selection. The defense got a jury unable to graduate high school and the prosecutors put on a case that very technical case beyound the comprehension of the jury who was only looking for an excuse to acquit anyway.