The People vs O.J. Simpson...American Crime Story... (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

If you want to have an inkling as to why black people might cheer for the verdict, read this article, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/o...ht-me-about-being-black.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

However, you might not like what it has to say.

 

[tdubel]

As a senior in College and finishing up basket weaving in the summer, I actually got to watch this entire trial start to finish. It became a car accident where you couldn't stop watching. All of that said, and this is the same feeling I had 20 years ago. Guilt has nothing to do with the outcome of a criminal trial in a lot of cases and this one is a classic.

All you had to do is start reading the defense team - F. Lee Bailey, Johnny Cochran, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Shapiro, Robert Kardashian, Barry Scheck, it actually goes on but I will stop there. Love or hate this team, they were far better than the likes of the prosecution which included:

Marcia Clark - probably competent, but had no composure in the courtroom and would rather use theatrical outbursts for the camera then do her job.
Christopher Darden - probably one of the MOST incompetent performances from a lead prosecutor in the history of trials. He was awful day in and day out. I used the term BUFFOON instead of his name back then.
Mark Furman - reasons previously stated on the thread. While a brilliant investigator, he was an outright racist publically who past present future used shady investigative techniques and he looked like the reincarnation of D.W. Griffith ala Birth of a Nation. Put the robe and cone on him and you had it.
All of the Prosecution experts - all appeared underpaid, under educated and generally UNDERWHELMING. On the flipside, the defense could afford to hire stars in the field and Michael Baden in particular damaged a lot of the physical evidence through his testimony for the defense.
Kato Kaelin - Worst ever "Eye" witness in the history of trials. Complete fruit loop.
Judge Lance Ito - he quickly appeared disgusted with all sides of the trial and generally was aloof and sometimes asleep at the wheel of the proceedings
Final Nail - NON FITTING GLOVE. Worst move in the history of any trial, as an attorney, you NEVER ask nor do anything you don't already know the answer too.

I could probably write my own book on this one. Now, this may not be the most popular statement, but at the time I was considering law school and in particular my goal was to become a criminal attorney. I actually cheered for the defense not because of Simpson's guilt but because of their shrewd and calculated moves, it was a work of art. I remember friends, family and colleagues saying all along he was going to be convicted and I being one of the lone voices of not guilty verdict. Sure enough, I enjoyed the I told you so moment. I was actually surprised by the genuine shock of surprise when Not Guilty was read and most people were in disbelief. Again, you have to remember in criminal court - there is a verdict that only includes 2 choices - Guilty or Not Guilty, no where have I ever read the word "innocent".

All of the above being said, I will not watch a Hollywood retelling, the original had all of the entertainment value a law junky could ever want, why taint it with Travolta and Gooding. Also, I am not a big fan of relying on this retelling as fact b/c it will inevitably have a bias or slant to it. If you watched the original, it was a clear cut story from start to finish, again, you almost were watching every day to see what brilliant move the defense would make and what colossal blunder the prosecution would have.

My 2 cents
TD

 

[Go for Broke]

All you had to do is start reading the defense team - F. Lee Bailey, Johnny Cochran, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Shapiro, Robert Kardashian, Barry Scheck, it actually goes on but I will stop there. Love or hate this team, they were far better than the likes of the prosecution which included:

Like they say, You get as much justice as you can afford.

 

[Combat]

The NY Times article is idiotic. While there no doubt were certainly many abuses by police relating to black citizens dating back for as long as anyone can remember, OJ was a poor choice to settle the score. He had little or no connection to the average black citizen. He was also guilty beyond any doubt. OJ used the legitimate grievances of others to his own advantage and by doing so made everyone worse off. This case was a lose/lose for everyone except OJ. A classic example of two wrongs not making a right. It created an even greater divide between races that likely made the poor black defendant worse off than he was before. I think this case was as much or more about celebrity and privilege as it was about race. If OJ had not been a celebrity that same jury convicts him as they do every single day when the evidence shows the poor black or white defendant to be guilty. Race was no doubt a major factor but if OJ was not a celebrity he is probably convicted.

 

[jazzeum]

The NY Times article is idiotic. While there no doubt were certainly many abuses by police relating to black citizens dating back for as long as anyone can remember, OJ was a poor choice to settle the score. He had little or no connection to the average black citizen. He was also guilty beyond any doubt. OJ used the legitimate grievances of others to his own advantage and by doing so made everyone worse off. This case was a lose/lose for everyone except OJ. A classic example of two wrongs not making a right. It created an even greater divide between races that likely made the poor black defendant worse off than he was before. I think this case was as much or more about celebrity and privilege as it was about race. If OJ had not been a celebrity that same jury convicts him as they do every single day when the evidence shows the poor black or white defendant to be guilty. Race was no doubt a major factor but if OJ was not a celebrity he is probably convicted.

I don't think it's a case of him not being guilty but a case of where a black person was able to get back at the police because of how the police are perceived as treating blacks for god knows how long. That is why, as the author points out, many blacks cheered. Now, you may not like that or thinks it doesn't make sense but considered in the history of race relations, it's not surprising. A case like this can't be considered in a vaccum but in the history of race relations in this country.

 

[Warrior]

All you had to do is start reading the defense team - F. Lee Bailey, Johnny Cochran, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Shapiro, Robert Kardashian, Barry Scheck, it actually goes on but I will stop there. Love or hate this team, they were far better than the likes of the prosecution which included:

Like they say, You get as much justice as you can afford.

Yup, OJ bought himself a not guilty verdict.

A lot of good that got him.

The part that really got me was the shots of the verdict being announced and the cheering that was going on, like their team had just won the Super Bowl. One of the shots if I'm not mistaken was at Georgetown University.

Sorry, that was as pathetic as it gets.

 

[tdubel]

Yup, OJ bought himself a not guilty verdict.

A lot of good that got him.

The part that really got me was the shots of the verdict being announced and the cheering that was going on, like their team had just won the Super Bowl. One of the shots if I'm not mistaken was at Georgetown University.

Sorry, that was as pathetic as it gets.

Like I said, his investment in his defense team bought him not guilty and again, did I cheer for the verdict b/c of justice, no , not at all because as most sane people would agree, he was guilty and responsible for the death of his wife and Ron Goldman.

Did I appreciate the performance of the defense in the context in which I was viewing as a future criminal attorney, YES, of course, it was brilliant and effective, they did the job they were paid to do and they did it well. Personally, I think Clark and Darden are 75% responsible for the not guilty verdict due to a complete dereliction of their duties as prosecutors. My opinion, but they sucked and were in my mind responsible for the debacle. They had very strong evidence and they blew it due to ineptitude from start to finish.

Tom

 

[hotel3alpha]

Gents,

Be honest with you here...I was in Japan when all of this was happening and pre-internet so I did not get to see the daily news coverage of the drama. Don't get me wrong it was news, but not in the gory details as I am sure you all got to see it EVERYDAY in the States. As a matter of fact, I think the majority of what I know about the case is documentaries and stories I watched/read after returning CONUS.

In the early 2000's I went to Quantico, VA for a FBI graduation and had some conversations about the case with some of the agents there as it was still fresh on everyones minds. Well, it was apart of the curriculum in the academy as a "case study" and though they did not tell me who "did it" they did tell me that OJ was there...with some one else. Someone else? That statement has always nagged at me.

Anywho, I look forward to watching the show.

John from Texas

PS: That Kato kid was a weirdo.

 

[nysoldiers]

Not watching this series as it brings back too much emotion and frustration that i felt at the time.
The responsibility for the verdict (letting a demented murderer to walk free) was 25% with the defense (dream team), 25% with an inept prosecution team and 50% from the make up of the jury.
Our jury system is imperfect and often reflects the biases, ignorance and emotions of the jurors. In this case there were jurors who hated the police (with some justification) and some who wanted payback for all the racist juries who sent innocent African Americans to incarceration or execution and let guilty Caucasians walk free. Some have admitted this motivation.
Too bad that jurors can't be held accountable for their corrupt verdicts! Well, its still one of the best legal systems in the world and hopefully with more educated jurors we can get more fair verdicts that prejudicial ones......
Certainly the judicial system favors the wealthy who can afford their own "dream teams" and know how to work the system.

Disclaimer: I dropped out of law school after the first year.

 

[gk5717]

Just read the above post and actually agree with everything BUT . "In this case there were jurors who hated the police" I agree with that but this is what I would like an explanation. "with some justification".
Let me put the shoe on the other foot. If you were a policeman and patrolled the inner city consisting of a 90% black population and dealt on a daily basis with everything that goes along with that. Would that policeman "with some justification" be likely to dislike blacks? I don't think that statement would gain much support. So why is it OK, with some justification, for blacks to hate the police?
Gary

 

[nysoldiers]

Just read the above post and actually agree with everything BUT . "In this case there were jurors who hated the police" I agree with that but this is what I would like an explanation. "with some justification".
Let me put the shoe on the other foot. If you were a policeman and patrolled the inner city consisting of a 90% black population and dealt on a daily basis with everything that goes along with that. Would that policeman "with some justification" be likely to dislike blacks? I don't think that statement would gain much support. So why is it OK, with some justification, for blacks to hate the police?
Gary

Sure, the police would have justification to fear for their lives in crime ridden neighborhoods and therefore some prejudice or dislike for that community would seem normal human behavior.
The problem or challenge for law enforcement is to realize that a majority of the citizens are innocent victims themselves and are stuck in a very tough situation. They want protection, they want
less crime and they want to work with a law enforcement agency that understands their plight. Being a policeman is a choice and the risks are self evident. Better training and recruiting with the goal of having the force better reflect the community are critical to minimizing this distrust and hate. When you have incidents like "Rodney King", even if not a common occurrence, the community forms an impression that stays with them for a long time.
Bottom line is I think there are reasons and maybe justifications on both sides of the issue for mistrust. Racial profiling is a double edged sword, however, for while it might help catch some criminals it also creates "collective punishment" for the innocent.

 

[Go for Broke]

Sure, the police would have justification to fear for their lives in crime ridden neighborhoods and therefore some prejudice or dislike for that community would seem normal human behavior.
The problem or challenge for law enforcement is to realize that a majority of the citizens are innocent victims themselves and are stuck in a very tough situation. They want protection, they want
less crime and they want to work with a law enforcement agency that understands their plight. Being a policeman is a choice and the risks are self evident. Better training and recruiting with the goal of having the force better reflect the community are critical to minimizing this distrust and hate. When you have incidents like "Rodney King", even if not a common occurrence, the community forms an impression that stays with them for a long time.
Bottom line is I think there are reasons and maybe justifications on both sides of the issue for mistrust. Racial profiling is a double edged sword, however, for while it might help catch some criminals it also creates "collective punishment" for the innocent.

I'm not sure where I got this quote. Maybe from the movie Gettysburg? War makes good men better and bad men worse.

 

[hotel3alpha]

Disclaimer: I dropped out of law school after the first year.

Hey NY,

Did you drop out of law school because of the OJ case or for other reasons? Trying not to pry, but your post certainly has a disdain for the case and law in general.

John from Texas

 

[nysoldiers]

Hey NY,

Did you drop out of law school because of the OJ case or for other reasons? Trying not to pry, but your post certainly has a disdain for the case and law in general.

John from Texas

I was in law school long before the OJ case....just didn't excite me and decided to enter the corporate world and eventually start my own business. In my humble opinion and generalizing from my experiences, lawyers don't make good businessmen. We certainly needed them for oversight, most transactions and Human resources but by definition they are not risk takers or entrepreneurial.
Like I said earlier our legal system has its imperfections and favors the wealthy but hard to find a better system in today's world.

 

[jazzeum]

I was in law school long before the OJ case....just didn't excite me and decided to enter the corporate world and eventually start my own business. In my humble opinion and generalizing from my experiences, lawyers don't make good businessmen. We certainly needed them for oversight, most transactions and Human resources but by definition they are not risk takers or entrepreneurial.
Like I said earlier our legal system has its imperfections and favors the wealthy but hard to find a better system in today's world.

We're not supposed to be risk takers. That's not our job. We analyze the risks, present the business person with the options. It's up to them to make the decisions, provided they're within the law. Otherwise, we have to get you out of jail :wink2:

I can't tell you how many times people look to the lawyers to make the decision, to provide them cover.

 

[hotel3alpha]

NY,

I was forever cured of going to Law School after taking Constitutional Law at UT. That was the single most difficult class I have ever taken. It did not help that the prof was a complete tyrant, but as the only "adult" in the class I understood. His rules were simple:

-Here is your syllabus. Don't show up to class unless you read the case for the day. If you show up, that means you read. If I call on you (the class was probably 200 students) and give a BS answer and I know you did not read I will kick you out of the class.

-One Comprehensive test at the end of the semester.

Yes, some students were called on and could not speak intelligently about the case or were proved they did not read and his dressing down of the student was a horrible spectacle...and I mean humiliating. Then they had to pack it up and walk out of class while everyone watched. I was horrified. I had not seen someone dressed down like that since the military. Needless to say, I raised my hand every class to get called on for the answer to one of his questions. He got the picture and waved me off the whole semester.

The end result: I am the neighborhood cul-de-sac expert on the Federalist Papers, Marbury vs Madison, Plessy vs Ferguson, Interstate Commerce and on and on and on. He wrote a book on Supreme Court Certiorari and we had to buy as apart of our "required" reading...it was $85 and you were NOT allowed to return it as a used book.

John from Texas

 

[nysoldiers]

We're not supposed to be risk takers. That's not our job. We analyze the risks, present the business person with the options. It's up to them to make the decisions, provided they're within the law. Otherwise, we have to get you out of jail :wink2:

I can't tell you how many times people look to the lawyers to make the decision, to provide them cover.

Exactly right.......lawyers are a necessity for businesses in this highly regulated and litigious society. We don't ask them to be marketeers, sales people, tech experts or innovators.
In a game you need referees, players and coaches.....I just preferred to be a player and coach. Fortunately my attorneys kept me in the game and kept me out of trouble but at a very
high cost!

 

[tdubel]

Believe or not and I am happy to admit it now, I gave up going to Law School b/c of the CPA exam. True story, after I graduated college and my infatuation with Criminal Law, I went to work as a CPA candidate and decided I would study for that test, make some money, take the LSATS and go to Florida State for law, the romantic notion of meeting a Southern Belle and living happily ever after. WELL< after taking and passing what is supposedly the hardest exam other than the Bar, I actually burned out of school and exams. Gave up on becoming a Mob/Mafia attorney and ended up marrying a Jewish girl in Baltimore and the rest is history.........................

TD

 

[jazzeum]

I would think the CPA test is harder. As far as bar exams go, the hardest traditionally have been NY, California and Florida in that order. The NY exam was no picnic: two days in hell.

 

[tdubel]

I would think the CPA test is harder. As far as bar exams go, the hardest traditionally have been NY, California and Florida in that order. The NY exam was no picnic: two days in hell.

Yup, CPA exam when I took it was 2.5 days and it made me never want to take another exam!
Tom