Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
The DA fucked up by holding the trial where it was held. OJ could have confessed in open court and that jury would have acquitted him anyway. Notice another jury in a different venue had no problem finding him guilty with the same set of facts. Still give Dershowitz props, that was a pithy comment.
Every now and then, when the OJ Simpson case comes up, I try to figure out which of the prosecutors were the most incompetent in handling the case. But, when I start that, I have to also recognize that Ito ran a zoo, not a courtroom, and that the police were... less than adequate.It was literally a Confederacy of Dunces.
"Let's not re-litigate the OJ Simpson prosecution!"Sorry; I've been watching the Sunday morning political shows today, and the cliches are boiling over.
All Darden did well was be cocky..he had that down pat.
Leather shrinks when it's wet and dries again. Dried blood would make it even stiffer than if it were wet with water. And I'm sure leather slides so easily over dry latex gloves. *eyeroll*
The truth of the one thing does not negate the other, but it was stupid to assume a defendant will help you demonstrate evidence against himself.The fault for this travesty lies with the jury. The truth was obvious.
Leather shrinks when it's wet and dries again. Dried blood would make it even stiffer than if it were wet with water. And I'm sure leather slides so easily over dry latex gloves. *eyeroll*Combined with O.J.'s brilliant acting, and you have a courtroom disaster.
No fan of Dershowitz, but I had the same reaction when I heard what Darden said.
The OJ case and Obamacare upheld.Modern US jurisprudence, where the law says whatever the hell they want it to say.What's not to respect?As for Darden, phphphththth. A fake conspiracy to counter OJ's Dream Team fake conspiracy.
Notice another jury in a different venue had no problem finding him guilty with the same set of facts.That was in civil case with a lower burden of proof. Plus OJ had to take the stand as he could no longer incriminate himself in a criminal case.The blame is not solely with the jury. The prosecution made a number of errors, and one of their main witnesses, Mark Fuhrman, committed perjury in his testimony.
Yeah. Given that the defense effectively attacked the DNA evidence and the police screwed up the chain of custody of it, the jury had every right to say the burden of proof wasn't met.
...and let us not forget that Mark Fuhrman was a racist!!
Those who enter public service are more intelligent, more ethical and generally just better people than those who depend on them for good order and social progress.If you have doubts about this, you are an anti-government crackpot and cynic who thinks that there is not something special about government.
The OJ thing used to bother me a lot. Yes, it was obvious what OJ did, and one wonders whether there was a racial element to his acquittal. It's a travesty for the loved ones of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but at least they have someone to be angry with and got money. It could have been some horrifying disease instead that killed them, then there would only be never ending grief.It's far more bothersome to me when convicted murders are set free, and murder again. There are at least four instances of people being released due to furman vs. Georgia, a supreme court ruling that resulted in the deaths of as many as 22 or more murders.Convicted murderers who murder again
Doesn't that old Lawyer saying apply here?Never ask a question in front of the jury, that you don't know the answer to?WRT: edutcher said... No fan of DershowitzI like him even with the liberal bent. He's got some Libertarian in him and is willing to take any liberal, including Obama to task when he sees them wrong.Good on the GWOT, even as a liberal. Being a Jew helps you recognize some of the Leftist Muslim love is crap.
Johnnie Cochran. Not Johnny. (Does it matter? Probably not, but if you're going to speak ill/well of the dead...)
Moral of the story: Jurors with an average I.Q. score of 85 (and I'm being generous) cannot be counted on to reach the correct decision.If this glove story is true, it's an outrage, but at least there's been a semi-happy ending: Cochrane is stinking up a coffin, and Simpson is serving a long term in the Nevada prison.
Darden should have easily seen that Simpson could make it look difficult to put on the glove, etc. The truth is, as others have pointed out, that jury wasn't going to convict if they witnessed the crime themselves.
"Having made the greatest legal blunder of the 20th century, he’s trying to blame it on a dead man."The greatest legal blunder of the 20th century was taking the trial out of Brentwood and into downtown L.A.That was made by the District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, because he wanted to maximize publicity. Idiot.All these L.A. jackoffs embarrassed themselves. Ito was spectacularly incompetent. Having a criminal trial go on as long as it did is ridiculous. The jurors were paid $1,325 for almost a year of their lives. They were sequestered from their families for 265 days.That entire case was a monument to ego and stupidity.
I always wonder how much information the jurors had to make their decision. Because, the prosecution was so incompetent that, without outside people explaining DNA, etc., I would've thought that there was at least a possibility it didn't happen as they said. If I had an extremely limited amount of information? I could see not being sure enough to convict.
Yeah. I didn't watch the trial, except the obligatory endless replays on evening news.OK, OJ, if you put this glove on, you're gonna go to the Big House forever. If you don't get the glove on, you walk. Here. give it a try. But first put on these squeeky dry latex gloves.HA HA HA.
The jurors did not understand the difference between a conceivable doubt and a reasonable doubt. Compare and contrast the level of evidence needed to convict OJ with that needed to convict Zimmerman. Furman is not the only racist in the world.
I'm not a fan of Dershoshit, but he's right. The DA should never have held the trial "downtown" and instead of picking his 2 best prosecutors he picked Darden because of his skin color and Clarke because she was supposed to be "Simpatico" with black women.DNA, Blood evidence, the glove, the shoes, the cut on OJs hand, the motive, the lack of alibi, the limo driver testimony, it all pointed to OJ and no one else. A videotape of OJ killing Goldman would not have convinced that jury that OJ was guilty.
"Jurors with an average I.Q. score of 85"Nice dance away from the key factor: Skin color.
No one ever credits OJ. For disposing of the evidence, cutting his hand on that hotel mirror, playing the police in the early days of the investigation, generating public sympathy during the low speed chase, hiring good lawyers ... His performance with the glove was spot on. Your average defendant doing that is going to look like a jerk trying to put one past the jury.The big prosecution mistake was taking so long to present their case. That projected an overriding sense of uncertainty.
One of the outcomes of the OJ trial, in which Simpson walked was the gift of the Kardashian family--whats wrong with that \sarc
This is why so many people have contempt for lawyers (and I'm a lawyer.) Or maybe disgust is the better term. Dershowitz knows damn well that OJ murdered two innocents, but that, to him, is a peripheral issue while he demonstrates his cleverness arguing about trail tactics.
Darden screwed up and he should own it. What a slime.
Every part of that trial was a fiasco. The defense team was even fighting amongst themselves. The main difference was that the defense team had OJ himself there to be sure that they did the job they were supposed to do. Everyone aside from OJ was too caught up in the spectacle. The prosecutors, the press, much of the public and the judge had no direct boot to the head to keep them focused on the job.
Post a Comment