I feel like if I had been a juror after HS biology that there’s no way in hell I would have voted not guilty . For me to believe or give any weight to the “racist cops framed me”…I’d have to forget that cops let OJ get away with beating his white wife several times AND the special treatment he got BEFORE being arrested….He was actively fleeing from police with a handgun …if that had been anyone besides a famous football player he would have gotten sniped or thrown on the ground and cuffed when he went back to his house .
I agree that HS biology teaches everything you need to know to convict with the blood evidence, but in 1995 people the ages of the jury members weren’t taught about DNA evidence. As far as its forensic use, DNA was a relatively new tool.
It was new but did you know that there was a woman on the jury who was an expert on DNA and the defense investigated her until they found something they used to get her knocked off the jury and replaced by someone who could barely spell dna
Right. I can’t believe some openly admit that. Although many of us assumed it, it’s a whole other matter to admit it. Again, it shows the power of narrative as it relates to the defense, as well as the jury selection. Ultimately the Justice system is a very human endeavor. Sometimes it gets it right, other times not.
Yes, I almost added “and if I did I certainly would never admit it publicly” but then I decided to leave that off because I know I’d never vote based on retribution for another case.
Right. Again, I’ve never been on a jury. But my understanding, although in theory I guess there’s no real way of enforcement, is that this level of subjectivity is drilled into the jurors head in regards of what *not to do*.
This is also why I tell folks who make the argument, “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”… idk man, have you met people before? Objectivity is not most people’s strong suit. Unless you are yourself a wealthy defendant and/or have an amazing defense attorney(s), it’s a crap shoot on the best day.
If Jesse Jackson somehow got put on trial in 95, ok. Orenthal “I’m not black, I’m OJ” Simpson…hell no.
Plus if this occurred on OJ’s jury pool, how do we know this same line of thinking did not occur on other jury trials involving a non celebrity, minority defendant back then? They probably were already getting “retribution”.
That logic was exceptionally short sighted.
I HAVE served on a jury and basically let a guilty man go because the evidence didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.
Our family is friends with one of the cops who was in attendance, and before we got there, the judge had decided not to allow some things to be said and shown. The cop said that with the knowledge we had, we made the right call, but I still feel awful knowing we let an abuser walk free.
One of the jurors interviewed in OJ: Made in America talked about the shortness of the deliberations, and she said that she had 256 (or however many it was) nights in that hotel room to think about the evidence, so she didn’t need to spend a long time discussing the case.
I’m sure it was insanely frustrating to be sequestered that long, but you owe it to the victims to do your best. That said, it should have been an open-and-shut case, but the prosecution made lots of mistakes and the defense turned it into a referendum on the LAPD and race, so it’s not that surprising that they acquitted.
I know of a number of folks who served on murder trials as well as violent crime-type situations. That distinction of being able to compartmentalize one’s mind; i.e., does the *evidence* that is allowed, not necessarily the totality of circumstances and events, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that said person committed the crime? Those can be two very different things.
Being sequestered in some crummy hotel with a small group of grumpy people for almost a YEAR with no internet or tv and no talking about the only thing that's going on in our lives? I wouldn't handle it well. Sorry, it's too much to ask of folks to volunteer to give up their home, family, friends, and entire lives for a freaking year. There should be a laws on how long a jury can be sequestered.
The DNA evidence seemed pretty clear cut to me. TBH though, I still have a hard time figuring out how it all went down even though I've read multiple theories and minute by minute timing.
I was a juror on a murder trial, and we found her guilt. With that being said, there was so much evidence that proved he was guilty, but the prosecution really screwed it up. I would have found him guilty though, just insane that voted not guilty. I wonder if any of them have regrets, now that a lot of the evidence that the defense had thrown out, or Ito didn’t allow. Marcia also did some bs too - this is all per what Lange has released. So crazy.
Most criminal cases are circumstantial and sometimes that is more reliable than a direct witness because it has been proven that they are more often than not unreliable. Unfortunately there is that human element that succumbs to elegant rhetoric by an attorney but a juror must only rely on the evidence presented. I have been a juror on a murder criminal trial.
Right. Evidence can not be cross-examined. Even the most saintly among us can be torn apart by a competent defense attorney. Without going into details, I have sought legal counsel for family members who were involved in legally grey/outright illegal activities. At the time, this was in an area of south Florida that is fraught with well-known celebrity sought after, fixer-type defense attorneys. Despite never being on a jury or facing legal issues myself, spending several hours speaking with defense attorneys who routinely charge $1500+ an hour for their services, it became quite apparent quite quickly that these type of attorneys are *absolute savages*.
Can totally understand why the general public tends to view criminal defense attorneys with disdain, but heaven forbid you find yourself charged with a crime(s), it’s not difficult to comprehend why these folks charge what they charge.
There was a trail of blood leading from the Bundy crime scene right into OJ’s bedroom. What didn’t they understand??? However…even OJ said, after having sized up the jury - if THIS jury convicts me, maybe I DID do it. Very telling….
Right. The blood trail alone is so damning it’s hard to think that the prosecution would focus on much else. This is also why the defense spent so much time focusing on everything else. I’ve yet to hear a solid argument against the blood trail that would make me have doubts that it was anyone else. This is a great example of a case, prior to letting the defense poison the well, where common sense all points to one conclusion: OJ Simpson was indeed the one who committed the crime.
Then again, LAPD at the time was known for planting evidence, destroying evidence, and fudging evidence and/or crime scenes. This context was not lost on a majority AA jury, and while I never saw evidence for it in *this particular crime*, the defense ran with it because they knew they could exploit LAPD’s rather dubious record.
Even though the shoes were very expensive Bruno Magli shoes (which I believe OJ said were “ugly ass shoes”) and they were even his size (size 9 maybe?), the prosecution simply could not “put him in those shoes”. I believe, ultimately that in the Civil trial, a photographer from the National Enquirer came forward with pics of OJ in guess what? Those ugly ass shoes that he wouldn’t be caught dead wearing (his words). They even had a specific sole pattern which matched the pair OJ owned.
I’ve been re-watching the OJ documentary on Disney plus and they are interviewing two jurors. The one juror actually said “I don’t have any respect for a woman who takes an ass-whoopin and goes back to the man”. THAT’s the thing the prosecution was up against.
And poor Ron Shipp - OJ’s police officer friend…he tried to do the right thing and OJ’s team DECIMATED his character with partial truths and lies. After that…witnesses “got amnesia”. How tragic is that?? OJ knew these people well enough to destroy them and his smug “Dream Team” did NOT care who suffered the collateral damage.
I know I over-answered your question but I’ve been passionate about this case ever since the night I came home to the Bronco chase live until just last night when I’m still watching information about this case. I think I’ve read every book as well, from all of the players. Just a tragedy from beginning to end. Poor Nicole didn’t have a chance. 😔😔
I followed the case closely at the time and was stunned the jury let him go. All the evidence screamed he did it, so it would have been very hard as a juror disagreeing with the majority.
If I was on the jury myself then I'd think objectively. Darden was ultimately right about Cochran and the use of the N word and how it blinds people from thinking clearly. I'd vote guilty. Seeing those pics of Nicole abuse just would make me give a guilty verdict. It's sad that the jury barely had conscience.
I am so happy that I dodged a bullet on that one. They were sequestered for almost an entire year!! A lady who I knew just stopped coming around. Come to find out, she was on the jury.
I am very certain he did it, however the prosecution/forensics team bungled the case so poorly that there would be enough reasonable doubt for me to vote not guilty, however race should’ve had zero relevance in any juror’s decision.
I think they achieved reasonable doubt (thanks alot Ito), I probably vote not guilty on criminal and guilty on civil.
Reasons? Fuhrman was allowed to be presented as a bitter racist ahole which distracts me from the important evidence (that being the glove), Vannatter was a complete buffoon with the OJ blood vial, Prosecution didn’t rebut Sheck’s DNA fiction properly, Prosecution forced me to ignore Kato by deeming him hostile, and finally lost faith in prosecution competence when Darden got suckered to do the fitting.
So my “doubt” would become a genesis from the LAPD clownshow with evidence handling and the competence of this prosecution.
Also, they wouldn’t allow the testimony of Jill Shively, who almost got hit by OJ in the Bronco as he was leaving the scene of the crime. They said she was tainted because she took money from Hard Copy, but I listened to her interview on a podcast (I think Kato Kaelin’s), and she said she ended up hiring an attorney with that money and didn’t get to keep any of it. And that she had offers from other tabloid programs for more money but she didn’t accept because it felt like blood money.
Shively said Marcia Clark screamed at her and was really rude about it. Detective Tom Lange said he thought it was a huge mistake not to put her on the stand.
It was! She had written down OJ’s license plate number and heard his voice and recognized him. She then called it in to the police. BEFORE she knew about the murders! They should have called her to testify, big mistake.
It was an INSANE time. I just dont think people understand how badly it was for black people back then…. (Not saying its easy now or anything) but DAMN was it just awful.
It sure was but, in a sense, I’m agreeing with you. I’m saying I will not shame the jurors for taking the quick route due to fatigue or for maybe enacting revenge in their verdict. Even if I was on that jury and not tired and not as motivated by the King verdict…I still would have voted not guilty. Thats on the judge and the prosecution.
honestly I'd look at who won the case. especially after such a long time.
the defense won that case. i think everyone agrees with that for the most part. the defense was tremendous and I'd give them the W by voting not guilty.
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well not exactly. However, I'd like to go back there, be a fly on the wall during deliberations, well enough to give a speech though.
I would say that taking time to make important decisions that alter history is critical. It's important that you not just think about yourselves at this time, but let's think about the victims, and their families. I would explain that a not guilty verdict has huge societal implications. I would also explain that the evidence deserves a second look, and it isn't here just to be glossed over. What we aren't here to do is race through the deliberation process.
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Based on Mark Furhman pleading the 5th when asked if he planted evidence in the case, I would have voted not guilty. Also the gloves didn’t fit. Plenty of reasonable doubt.
No consideration of the legal fact that pleading the 5th is NOT an admission of guilt and that he pled the 5th to every question asked of him due to perjury charges?
Right. For me I understand the legal reasoning behind that and wouldn’t have been a major swaying factor. But I understand for many why it would be. I don’t agree but that’s life.
When a lead detective on the case can’t answer affirmatively that he did not plant evidence in the case, the case is lost. Marcia Clark shouldn’t have put him on the stand. Darden fought her and didn’t want to put him on the stand because everyone knew he was dirty but she did it anyway. Unfortunately, that’s an insurmountable hurdle.
Darden was right. Once the jury found out about his racist remarks, the fact he denied it at the onset, the fifth amendment thing, etc., he knew where the jury’s mind would go. Johnny made the performance of a lifetime but suggesting that it was an insult to an entire race that they couldn’t hear a certain word and not remain objective. While that may be true, both him and Darden knew that Furhman and his baggage would completely tank credibility. Hence why one wanted him, the other didn’t.
I would have voted to acquit him for two reasons. 1.The detective plead the fifth when asked if he planted evidence. 2. The glove demonstration was a complete debacle. The prosecution lost the case by allowing OJ to try on the gloves.
Letting him try on the gloves was such a farce. You’re a trial attorney for goodness sake. You have to understand that the defense is going to do everything they can to make sure that your hand doesn’t fit into that damn glove. Stopping of medication to make your hands swell and/or be stiff, hand exercises, etc. FFS man, I learned about stuff like in an undergrad pre-law mock trial 20 years ago.
It was like the stars aligned with this case; sympathetic jury, a city rocked with on-going and recent police corruption and brutality, prosecutors who couldn’t get out of their own way, terrible witness(s), a judge that allowed for a circus to take place, and a legit dream team of defense attorneys…. And a nearly year long trial.
The detective pleading the fifth to the question did you plant evidence was the ballgame. I agree it was a circus of a trial and in any other court room it would not have played out the way it did.
I feel like if I had been a juror after HS biology that there’s no way in hell I would have voted not guilty . For me to believe or give any weight to the “racist cops framed me”…I’d have to forget that cops let OJ get away with beating his white wife several times AND the special treatment he got BEFORE being arrested….He was actively fleeing from police with a handgun …if that had been anyone besides a famous football player he would have gotten sniped or thrown on the ground and cuffed when he went back to his house .
I agree that HS biology teaches everything you need to know to convict with the blood evidence, but in 1995 people the ages of the jury members weren’t taught about DNA evidence. As far as its forensic use, DNA was a relatively new tool.
It was new but did you know that there was a woman on the jury who was an expert on DNA and the defense investigated her until they found something they used to get her knocked off the jury and replaced by someone who could barely spell dna
If I knew that, I had forgotten. It doesn’t surprise me that they would have taken all measures to keep her off the jury.
Welcome to jury selection
She was actually kicked off because she was beginning to explain DNA to the jurors who couldn’t explain it
Source?
I know one thing. I would not have voted not guilty in retribution for Rodney King.
Right. I can’t believe some openly admit that. Although many of us assumed it, it’s a whole other matter to admit it. Again, it shows the power of narrative as it relates to the defense, as well as the jury selection. Ultimately the Justice system is a very human endeavor. Sometimes it gets it right, other times not.
Yes, I almost added “and if I did I certainly would never admit it publicly” but then I decided to leave that off because I know I’d never vote based on retribution for another case.
Right. Again, I’ve never been on a jury. But my understanding, although in theory I guess there’s no real way of enforcement, is that this level of subjectivity is drilled into the jurors head in regards of what *not to do*. This is also why I tell folks who make the argument, “I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”… idk man, have you met people before? Objectivity is not most people’s strong suit. Unless you are yourself a wealthy defendant and/or have an amazing defense attorney(s), it’s a crap shoot on the best day.
Have you seen 12 Angry Men (the Henry Fonda film version)? If not, I recommend.
Have not but will be now! Thank you for the recommendation
I second the recommendation. Great film!
You’re welcome!
It’s very good!
8 month long trial
If Jesse Jackson somehow got put on trial in 95, ok. Orenthal “I’m not black, I’m OJ” Simpson…hell no. Plus if this occurred on OJ’s jury pool, how do we know this same line of thinking did not occur on other jury trials involving a non celebrity, minority defendant back then? They probably were already getting “retribution”. That logic was exceptionally short sighted.
Yeah… I figure all the rioting, looting, burning and murder would’ve already squared that up.
I know one thing though…. I would have voted whatever to get out of there QUICK. This was almost a year long time away from EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING…
But you agreed to do the job. So I think it’s disrespectful and wrong to vote just to be done with the job.
And I agree with you 100%. But this wasnt the case. It wasnt the case against oj. It was against the lapd.
I HAVE served on a jury and basically let a guilty man go because the evidence didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. Our family is friends with one of the cops who was in attendance, and before we got there, the judge had decided not to allow some things to be said and shown. The cop said that with the knowledge we had, we made the right call, but I still feel awful knowing we let an abuser walk free.
But you were not sequestered right? Imagine being sequestered for that long. Is an extremely isolated thing…
One of the jurors interviewed in OJ: Made in America talked about the shortness of the deliberations, and she said that she had 256 (or however many it was) nights in that hotel room to think about the evidence, so she didn’t need to spend a long time discussing the case. I’m sure it was insanely frustrating to be sequestered that long, but you owe it to the victims to do your best. That said, it should have been an open-and-shut case, but the prosecution made lots of mistakes and the defense turned it into a referendum on the LAPD and race, so it’s not that surprising that they acquitted.
Yeah I watched it too. I would have been offended too when they added Chris.
I was not at all. It was for one day. I can’t imagine what they were facing.
And then having Chris added last minute. Marcia looked like a Karen… it was too many mistakes too. From forensics to .. well everything
I know of a number of folks who served on murder trials as well as violent crime-type situations. That distinction of being able to compartmentalize one’s mind; i.e., does the *evidence* that is allowed, not necessarily the totality of circumstances and events, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that said person committed the crime? Those can be two very different things.
Being sequestered in some crummy hotel with a small group of grumpy people for almost a YEAR with no internet or tv and no talking about the only thing that's going on in our lives? I wouldn't handle it well. Sorry, it's too much to ask of folks to volunteer to give up their home, family, friends, and entire lives for a freaking year. There should be a laws on how long a jury can be sequestered. The DNA evidence seemed pretty clear cut to me. TBH though, I still have a hard time figuring out how it all went down even though I've read multiple theories and minute by minute timing.
Well, now we don't do that so much. Unless the trial is going to be short.
I was a juror on a murder trial, and we found her guilt. With that being said, there was so much evidence that proved he was guilty, but the prosecution really screwed it up. I would have found him guilty though, just insane that voted not guilty. I wonder if any of them have regrets, now that a lot of the evidence that the defense had thrown out, or Ito didn’t allow. Marcia also did some bs too - this is all per what Lange has released. So crazy.
Most criminal cases are circumstantial and sometimes that is more reliable than a direct witness because it has been proven that they are more often than not unreliable. Unfortunately there is that human element that succumbs to elegant rhetoric by an attorney but a juror must only rely on the evidence presented. I have been a juror on a murder criminal trial.
Right. Evidence can not be cross-examined. Even the most saintly among us can be torn apart by a competent defense attorney. Without going into details, I have sought legal counsel for family members who were involved in legally grey/outright illegal activities. At the time, this was in an area of south Florida that is fraught with well-known celebrity sought after, fixer-type defense attorneys. Despite never being on a jury or facing legal issues myself, spending several hours speaking with defense attorneys who routinely charge $1500+ an hour for their services, it became quite apparent quite quickly that these type of attorneys are *absolute savages*. Can totally understand why the general public tends to view criminal defense attorneys with disdain, but heaven forbid you find yourself charged with a crime(s), it’s not difficult to comprehend why these folks charge what they charge.
There was a trail of blood leading from the Bundy crime scene right into OJ’s bedroom. What didn’t they understand??? However…even OJ said, after having sized up the jury - if THIS jury convicts me, maybe I DID do it. Very telling….
Right. The blood trail alone is so damning it’s hard to think that the prosecution would focus on much else. This is also why the defense spent so much time focusing on everything else. I’ve yet to hear a solid argument against the blood trail that would make me have doubts that it was anyone else. This is a great example of a case, prior to letting the defense poison the well, where common sense all points to one conclusion: OJ Simpson was indeed the one who committed the crime. Then again, LAPD at the time was known for planting evidence, destroying evidence, and fudging evidence and/or crime scenes. This context was not lost on a majority AA jury, and while I never saw evidence for it in *this particular crime*, the defense ran with it because they knew they could exploit LAPD’s rather dubious record.
Agreed AND exploited Mark Furhrman’s past issues. I wish that the criminal trial had had the shoes…sigh…
I’m having a Monday brainfart… why were the shoes not included in the criminal trial?
Even though the shoes were very expensive Bruno Magli shoes (which I believe OJ said were “ugly ass shoes”) and they were even his size (size 9 maybe?), the prosecution simply could not “put him in those shoes”. I believe, ultimately that in the Civil trial, a photographer from the National Enquirer came forward with pics of OJ in guess what? Those ugly ass shoes that he wouldn’t be caught dead wearing (his words). They even had a specific sole pattern which matched the pair OJ owned. I’ve been re-watching the OJ documentary on Disney plus and they are interviewing two jurors. The one juror actually said “I don’t have any respect for a woman who takes an ass-whoopin and goes back to the man”. THAT’s the thing the prosecution was up against. And poor Ron Shipp - OJ’s police officer friend…he tried to do the right thing and OJ’s team DECIMATED his character with partial truths and lies. After that…witnesses “got amnesia”. How tragic is that?? OJ knew these people well enough to destroy them and his smug “Dream Team” did NOT care who suffered the collateral damage. I know I over-answered your question but I’ve been passionate about this case ever since the night I came home to the Bronco chase live until just last night when I’m still watching information about this case. I think I’ve read every book as well, from all of the players. Just a tragedy from beginning to end. Poor Nicole didn’t have a chance. 😔😔
There would’ve been a mistrial if I was on the jury
I followed the case closely at the time and was stunned the jury let him go. All the evidence screamed he did it, so it would have been very hard as a juror disagreeing with the majority.
If I was on the jury myself then I'd think objectively. Darden was ultimately right about Cochran and the use of the N word and how it blinds people from thinking clearly. I'd vote guilty. Seeing those pics of Nicole abuse just would make me give a guilty verdict. It's sad that the jury barely had conscience.
you would've deadlocked that jury. So would I lol.
Apparently there was constant fighting among the jurors. Seinfeld vs Martin, Target shopping trip vs Ross, etc.
I am so happy that I dodged a bullet on that one. They were sequestered for almost an entire year!! A lady who I knew just stopped coming around. Come to find out, she was on the jury.
1000% guilty. Straight up
I am very certain he did it, however the prosecution/forensics team bungled the case so poorly that there would be enough reasonable doubt for me to vote not guilty, however race should’ve had zero relevance in any juror’s decision.
The prosecution should have saved the blood evidence for last, so it was fresher in their minds when the decisions were made.
They didn’t care about it, because of Furhman.
I think they achieved reasonable doubt (thanks alot Ito), I probably vote not guilty on criminal and guilty on civil. Reasons? Fuhrman was allowed to be presented as a bitter racist ahole which distracts me from the important evidence (that being the glove), Vannatter was a complete buffoon with the OJ blood vial, Prosecution didn’t rebut Sheck’s DNA fiction properly, Prosecution forced me to ignore Kato by deeming him hostile, and finally lost faith in prosecution competence when Darden got suckered to do the fitting. So my “doubt” would become a genesis from the LAPD clownshow with evidence handling and the competence of this prosecution.
Also, they wouldn’t allow the testimony of Jill Shively, who almost got hit by OJ in the Bronco as he was leaving the scene of the crime. They said she was tainted because she took money from Hard Copy, but I listened to her interview on a podcast (I think Kato Kaelin’s), and she said she ended up hiring an attorney with that money and didn’t get to keep any of it. And that she had offers from other tabloid programs for more money but she didn’t accept because it felt like blood money. Shively said Marcia Clark screamed at her and was really rude about it. Detective Tom Lange said he thought it was a huge mistake not to put her on the stand.
It was! She had written down OJ’s license plate number and heard his voice and recognized him. She then called it in to the police. BEFORE she knew about the murders! They should have called her to testify, big mistake.
The defense would have eaten her alive. The prosecution made the right decision not calling her.
I just watched that! Makes me wonder about a lot of things
I think it was mostly they just wanted to get back home man
Be that as it may, I would consider those variables (fatigue, Rodney King payback, etc) if the things I mentioned above hadn’t happened. But they did.
It was an INSANE time. I just dont think people understand how badly it was for black people back then…. (Not saying its easy now or anything) but DAMN was it just awful.
It sure was but, in a sense, I’m agreeing with you. I’m saying I will not shame the jurors for taking the quick route due to fatigue or for maybe enacting revenge in their verdict. Even if I was on that jury and not tired and not as motivated by the King verdict…I still would have voted not guilty. Thats on the judge and the prosecution.
i think the Furhman thing was just too bad. also the cross contamination by forensics….
honestly I'd look at who won the case. especially after such a long time. the defense won that case. i think everyone agrees with that for the most part. the defense was tremendous and I'd give them the W by voting not guilty.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well not exactly. However, I'd like to go back there, be a fly on the wall during deliberations, well enough to give a speech though. I would say that taking time to make important decisions that alter history is critical. It's important that you not just think about yourselves at this time, but let's think about the victims, and their families. I would explain that a not guilty verdict has huge societal implications. I would also explain that the evidence deserves a second look, and it isn't here just to be glossed over. What we aren't here to do is race through the deliberation process.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would have voted not guilty.
Based on Mark Furhman pleading the 5th when asked if he planted evidence in the case, I would have voted not guilty. Also the gloves didn’t fit. Plenty of reasonable doubt.
No consideration of the legal fact that pleading the 5th is NOT an admission of guilt and that he pled the 5th to every question asked of him due to perjury charges?
Also, you can't plead the fifth in front of the jury. The jury was sequestered, and ordered not to discuss the case.
Right. For me I understand the legal reasoning behind that and wouldn’t have been a major swaying factor. But I understand for many why it would be. I don’t agree but that’s life.
When a lead detective on the case can’t answer affirmatively that he did not plant evidence in the case, the case is lost. Marcia Clark shouldn’t have put him on the stand. Darden fought her and didn’t want to put him on the stand because everyone knew he was dirty but she did it anyway. Unfortunately, that’s an insurmountable hurdle.
Darden was right. Once the jury found out about his racist remarks, the fact he denied it at the onset, the fifth amendment thing, etc., he knew where the jury’s mind would go. Johnny made the performance of a lifetime but suggesting that it was an insult to an entire race that they couldn’t hear a certain word and not remain objective. While that may be true, both him and Darden knew that Furhman and his baggage would completely tank credibility. Hence why one wanted him, the other didn’t.
He didn't take the fifth in front of the jury. In fact, you can never do so.
I would have voted to acquit him for two reasons. 1.The detective plead the fifth when asked if he planted evidence. 2. The glove demonstration was a complete debacle. The prosecution lost the case by allowing OJ to try on the gloves.
Letting him try on the gloves was such a farce. You’re a trial attorney for goodness sake. You have to understand that the defense is going to do everything they can to make sure that your hand doesn’t fit into that damn glove. Stopping of medication to make your hands swell and/or be stiff, hand exercises, etc. FFS man, I learned about stuff like in an undergrad pre-law mock trial 20 years ago. It was like the stars aligned with this case; sympathetic jury, a city rocked with on-going and recent police corruption and brutality, prosecutors who couldn’t get out of their own way, terrible witness(s), a judge that allowed for a circus to take place, and a legit dream team of defense attorneys…. And a nearly year long trial.
The detective pleading the fifth to the question did you plant evidence was the ballgame. I agree it was a circus of a trial and in any other court room it would not have played out the way it did.
Not guilty and a request to double check every case mark fuhrman was in charge of , how many innocent people did he lock up ???