OJ Simpson.
- Thread starter Aloha Hoosier
- Start date
I'm not voting. It's too long ago and my memory of the proceedings is murky at best, so I can't say today if the criminal case was proven beyond a shadow of doubt (for me).
I will say I don't like the civil finding afterwards. I don't like any of those situations where they win a civil finding after a criminal finding of not guilty. Just too double jeopardy-y for me. In the same vein, I don't like it when say a cop is found not guilty of say wrongful death, and the Feds follow up with a deprivation of civil rights charge for the same incident.
I will say I don't like the civil finding afterwards. I don't like any of those situations where they win a civil finding after a criminal finding of not guilty. Just too double jeopardy-y for me. In the same vein, I don't like it when say a cop is found not guilty of say wrongful death, and the Feds follow up with a deprivation of civil rights charge for the same incident.
There are a couple of good books about it. I can't remember which lawyers they were, but a couple of them said they thought he was guilty though OJ wouldn't say that he was. I think if he'd have confessed that he was guilty to any of his lawyers that lawyer would have to withdraw from the case, but I'm not sure about that. Lawyers?
IIUC, if OJ confessed to them, then the lawyers couldn't put him on the stand knowing he would profess innocence. Suborning perjury. But since IANAL, ICBW.
Last edited:
He can confess now and not face any consequences. Maybe he'll do a death bed confession before he goes off to meat his maker - or the other guy.
It was a disappointing thing for me as he was my favorite player as a kid, but I personally have no doubt he was guilty.
He can confess now and not face any consequences. Maybe he'll do a death bed confession before he goes off to meat his maker - or the other guy.
It was a disappointing thing for me as he was my favorite player as a kid, but I personally have no doubt he was guilty.
The trial was on TV and was on in all the student lounges in the Union. There was a photo in the IDS from the moment the verdict was announced, which showed a bunch of black students cheering and clapping alongside a bunch of shocked white students with gaping mouths. More than anything else, that picture showed what kind of racial divide there was, even among supposedly enlightened, educated people. I don't know how much we've progressed.
Can you add a choice? He f#cking killed them. That’s my choice.
Do I now think he was guilty? Yes. At the time, did I think the prosecution proved its case? I did not. Was I knowledgeable and experienced enough to form such an opinion? Not even close.
He kilt them people.
The glove should not have been admitted - cops lied about going onto the property without a warrant when they found it - said he was NOT a suspect. But he was absolutely a suspect so a warrant was required. But the DNA don’t lie - he kilt them people.
Verdict was ”jury nullification” because folks were tired of LA cops discriminating against black guys.
The glove should not have been admitted - cops lied about going onto the property without a warrant when they found it - said he was NOT a suspect. But he was absolutely a suspect so a warrant was required. But the DNA don’t lie - he kilt them people.
Verdict was ”jury nullification” because folks were tired of LA cops discriminating against black guys.
How many hundreds (thousands?) Of people have been convicted of murder for such lower levels of evidence?
Obviously people didn't understand DNA well at that point.
I listened to an interview last week on NPR with Sterling K. Brown about playing Christopher Darden. He had some interesting things to say about how his views have changed over the years on the OJ case. At the time, he viewed it very much through the lens of a black guy finally beating the system that was always biased against black guys, and Darden was very much a traitor, but now he views things very differently.
Anyway, I think your "jury nullification" comment is spot on.
This is key. This happens ten years later, and he's locked up no question.
Simpson killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. I'm sure my opinion is formed by what I've read about his history with Nicole Brown (including intense jealousy), the fact that there were no other suspects, the fact that his alibi had holes, the Ford Bronco "chase" and the events surrounding it, and his "If I Did It" book which could be viewed as a confession.
At the same time, I think the jury verdict was the correct one. The prosecution has the burden of proving a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's obviously a difficult standard. In the OJ case, the prosecution proceeded with a disastrous live (during the trial) demonstration involving a glove found at the crime scene and another found at Simpson's home. Simpson was directed to put the gloves on. He struggled to do so as they appeared too small for his hands. It's not a stretch to believe that that debacle created enough doubt so that the prosecution failed to meet its burden. Johnnie Cochran certainly thought so. He famously, in his summation, argued that "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit." The jury did just that.
After the trial, there was speculation that the gloves had shrunk because they had been soaked in blood and then kept in storage. I believe there was also a suggestion that Simpson's hands were swollen because he had recently stopped taking arthritis medication. Also, he attempted to place the gloves in question onto hands that were already covered with latex gloves. The bottom line, though, is that the prosecution fvcked up. That's on them. It's not the jury's job to explain away, overlook or discount a demonstration that the prosecution botched. A lawyer should never attempt a demonstration in front of a jury when they're not certain of the outcome. In my opinion, the not guilty verdict was completely understandable.
The wrongful death civil trial involved a different standard, a much less difficult standard - - proof by a preponderance of the evidence. More likely than that. The jury had little trouble with that one.
At the same time, I think the jury verdict was the correct one. The prosecution has the burden of proving a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's obviously a difficult standard. In the OJ case, the prosecution proceeded with a disastrous live (during the trial) demonstration involving a glove found at the crime scene and another found at Simpson's home. Simpson was directed to put the gloves on. He struggled to do so as they appeared too small for his hands. It's not a stretch to believe that that debacle created enough doubt so that the prosecution failed to meet its burden. Johnnie Cochran certainly thought so. He famously, in his summation, argued that "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit." The jury did just that.
After the trial, there was speculation that the gloves had shrunk because they had been soaked in blood and then kept in storage. I believe there was also a suggestion that Simpson's hands were swollen because he had recently stopped taking arthritis medication. Also, he attempted to place the gloves in question onto hands that were already covered with latex gloves. The bottom line, though, is that the prosecution fvcked up. That's on them. It's not the jury's job to explain away, overlook or discount a demonstration that the prosecution botched. A lawyer should never attempt a demonstration in front of a jury when they're not certain of the outcome. In my opinion, the not guilty verdict was completely understandable.
The wrongful death civil trial involved a different standard, a much less difficult standard - - proof by a preponderance of the evidence. More likely than that. The jury had little trouble with that one.
But guess who is? Hall of Famer, Rod Carew.
Disagree.
The trial was lost when they changed the venue. As you said, racial division didn't change much since that time. That jury would do the same thing today.
Chris Darden tried to go the hero route and it backfired, bigly.
One of the great blunders in court history I would say.
One of the great blunders in court history I would say.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Well, what'dya know.... the Government admits to mishandling Trump documents- Latest: Aloha Hoosier
-
-
-
-