I hate to open this can of worms, but I always thought the jury got a bad rap there. It was a case of lousy, starstruck prosecutors getting outclassed by private sector lawyers. The jurors I saw didn't think he was innocent. They took that pesky "reasonable doubt" thing seriously.
In the same era, the original Simi Valley Rodney King jury also got a bad rap. They nailed the brute who did most of the beating and his superior, but the other two weren't nearly guilty of the stuff they were charged with. Again, crappy, headline grabbing prosecutors didn't do their jobs and people blamed the jury and tried to make it a racial thing. It wasn't.
Okay, I also say that the OJ Jury did a good job. BUT ... where were the peers of the two who were murdered?
Still, the Jury did well.
The California trial procedures, and the Judge’s management of the trial were not good. It may well be that the prosecutors were starstruck, that aspect wasn’t something I recollect, but at the time I wasn’t paying attention to the trial except as a lost cause of a popular circus.