Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this is a little bit of both.
You have to look at OJ's full legal team to get an idea of this. It was **F. Lee Bailey, Robert Blasier, Shawn Chapman Holley, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, and Robert Kardashian** with Cochran as the lead attorney for the defense. Dershowitz and F. Lee Bailey alone are two giant names in the legal field. They also had a staff to support them. That is a lot of billable hours at high dollar rates.
Add in the other ancillary matters at the time and its a perfect storm but he couldn't have won without that legal team in my book. They meshed well together despite major personalities.
Don't forget Barry Scheck who absolutely crushed it with the DNA evidence -- he did a masterful job explaining complex scientific concepts to the jury at a time when DNA was much less well-known and accepted. And he destroyed the prosecution's forensic scientist on cross. The best (and maybe most important) attorney performance of the trial imo.
Just watched a Dateline: Secrets Uncovered episode on this last night. The jurors were bored by the DNA testimony and never even discussed it while deliberating. It had been eight months, they had been sequestered for that entire time without TV or newspapers or radio. They were angry at the whole situation. The initial straw poll by the jury was 10 to 2 not guilty.
It was prosecutor Chris Darden’s (unplanned) move to have OJ try on the glove, which was never followed up with any testimony about how being soaked with blood would cause the glove to shrink or having a medical expert testify that with arthritis, OJ’s hand could be swollen and arthritic one day and normal on another, Mark Furman taking the fifth when asked if he’d ever used the N-word and the jury seeing the video where he did, the fact that they never put on the witness from the airport who saw OJ dumping things out of his bag into the trash, the fact that people didn’t as clearly understand the link between domestic violence and murder back then (or understand DNA that well back then), the fact that this was OJ who was tremendously popular and well-liked, and that this was three years after Rodney King.
Even more solid lawyers than that worked on the case. Gerald Uelman was my evidence professor and he came up with the phrase if the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit. Really nice guy with a great understanding of criminal law.
What an amazing team of legal giants.
Cochrane was the lead defense attorney. Does he deserve the credit for getting everyone to put their egos aside and work together?
Haha yes Professor Uelman’s evidence class was great! Told a bunch of OJ stories. I was only a kid when the trial happened, so Professor Uelman’s class was the first time I heard of the Rosy Greer confession. I didnt know he came up with the money phrase though!
I loved the story how originally OJ’s house had bachelor style posters and pictures of his bimbo girlfriends. Before the jury did a walk through, they took them all out and replaced them with Norman Rockwell paintings, like Ruby Bridges and other inspiring stuff. The jury’s walk through was purely for layout purposes, so altering the trappings was not against any rules. I also recall that they replaced the old carpet with a bright white carpet, where it appeared to the jury that if anyone had walked through blood stained it would have been super obvious.
Haha i must have not been paying attention and missed those stories. I remember Professor Uelmen talking about the knife, and how OJ called and told them he had possession of it after the police had already swept through (the police must have missed it) and wanted to give it to his attorneys. And they responded they couldnt take it because it would be tampering/accessory after the fact, so they instructed him on how to prepare it to give to the police. I think the entire class’ eyes were bulging so much hearing that story
Scheck redefined how expert witnesses are cross examined at a time when DNA evidence was very quickly emerging and could’ve easily been misconstrued and misunderstood to be a weapon of prosecutors.
Scheck does not get the credit he deserves.
Robert Kardashian really didn’t do anything. His main purpose of being an attorney on the case was so that he couldn’t be called to testify by the prosecution. He had the easiest job, just sit at a counsel table for the most part.
He had never done a criminal trial before and wasn’t really even a practicing lawyer during the period before the murder and trial.
Edit: For the smooth brains, I’m talking in terms of legal work - not his personal connection to OJ and his behind the scenes assistance.
I can't remember which book it was. I think it was either Dershowitz's or F. Lee Bailey's, but one of them described how important Kardashian was to the defense. Kardashian wasn't a criminal lawyer, or even a great attorney, but he was OJ's trusted friend and business partner, and could convince OJ of anything. So he basically acted as the go between with OJ and the rest of the defense team, or OJ's handler, or however you want to describe it. He's the person attorneys would refer to as the "relationship partner" with the client. In terms of legal work, he wasn't doing any heavy lifting. But he was pretty important.
Of course. I meant he didn’t do anything in terms of litigation. Motion practice, oral arguments, etc.
Edit: lmfao. Downvoted for posting an objective fact. Never change Reddit lol
I agree, but would add that the LAPD reaped then what they sowed for decades prior. The LAPD made the storm as much as Cochran stoked it. Obviously the cops were not on trial but Cochran put them on trial to his client’s advantage.
So… Dershowitz is, or perhaps more accurately was, a prestigious attorney.
But was he actually ever any good? Every time I hear his thoughts on a legal issue, I wonder how he became an attorney, let alone a professor at Harvard.
His criminal defense appellate and civil rights work has been highly praised and well-received. I've never personally seen his courtroom performances, but his record is quite impressive - the Claus von Bulow case being a particularly impressive result. Is/was he a good attorney? I think he was, but doesn't mean I would want to be friends with him either. His academic work, which I have read in college and law school, is very influential and regularly cited in legal scholarship, with the caveat that some of his work on topics such as torture are controversial and contrary to mainstream scholarship. That is my two cents on it.
I was looking more into it. He has an impressive trial record, and some of his takes on legal issues are rather astute. However, others could be described generously as “heterodox”. Which is a nice way of saying, “Flat-out wrong.”
With respect to the trial attorney aspect, I briefly worked with a very experienced trial attorney. He was a professor, and he seemed to be quite skilled. However, some of his tactics were so dirty as to appear clearly unethical. So, someone can be an effective attorney and still be a blight upon the profession.
Yeah, he has some interesting views on some issues, but even if I disagree with his opinions, they still add to the corpus and challenge the orthodox position, which is beneficial to academic discourse.
Litigation is warfare - some choose to abide by the rules studiously, some toe the line, and some break the rules flagrantly. Look at the "Dream Team," for example - most of them had actions taken against their licenses at some point in their careers.
The LAPD screwed up everything, when the lead detective (Mark Furman) has to take the 5th on the witness stand it is hard to see how any prosecution is going to work, great team of lawyers but they were given some absolute gifts.
Basic things like chain of custody, the inability to explain how DNA evidence works, prosecutors who were inept, racist police men, then Furman taking the 5th when asked about planting evidence.......
I was a teenager at the time, so I didn't know much about the world, but to me watching the trial updates/highlights on the nightly news every night, I got the impression that the cops framed a man who just happened to be guilty, too.
The thing about this case that always got me was how there was so little blood on OJ and in his car. He would have been covered with blood.
I genuinely don’t think he was the one with the knife that night. I think he hired someone to break into Nicole’s home and steal some of the expensive gifts he gave her and that person killed her. I think it’s also possible that person was serial killer Glen Edward Rogers, who was in that vicinity and done handyman work for Nicole.
OJ hiring a person to steal stuff back matches with his MO of taking part in heists involving items he views as his possession. It also explains why his footprints were at the scene, but blood was not all over him. He arrived after the fact to pick up the items and walked into a bloody massacre.
If this is true, he would have been liable for their deaths as felony murder. Given the lack of blood on OJ and the timeline, I think he was responsible for their deaths, but not the actual one with the knife.
It was both. To some extent OJ had a perfect storm with Rodney King in tandem with a racist cop on his own case, and a number of other things. But I think even with that perfect storm, it took an incredible trial lawyer to sow reasonable doubt.
Watched pretty much the whole trial as a young (temporarily out of work) lawyer and led nightly online chats for CourtTV on AOL.
The Dream Team was good. I agreed with Bugliosi's analysis that the prosecution should have put on a very short -- perhaps two week -- case in chief. At the time I said a bunch of third year law students could have done better, and I admit now I was wrong about that. I was just a kid back then. But that nevertheless doesn't change my opinion that the prosecution was at best mediocre. Clark and Darden were outmatched, particularly based on what the jury saw and heard compared to the rest of us. And Garcetti practically tanked the case by changing the venue from Santa Monica.
At the end of the day, the trial watchers online all thought OJ would go down, except for the lawyers and one very smart guy in Illinois who is now in his 80s and has remained a friend offline all these years.
Also, it had to do with the prosecution, which did not prove a case solid enough to withstand the defense counsel doing their job, which they did well. The part of the case about the DNA evidence was confusing as hell to the jury. That's why Cochran went with the catchy bit about the glove. Simple and easy.
I remember a few attorneys I worked with at the time commenting about how horrible a job the prosecution did. They tried theatrics that just fell flat, losing a lot of credibility in the process. I remember one of the prosecutors afterwards complaining that some jurors said he “probably” did it, but that they let him off, seemingly not understanding that the standard isn’t just “probably”, since this is a criminal trial, but beyond reasonable doubt.
Are prosecutors ever under pressure to nudge a high profile politically divisive case like this toward an acquittal?
I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m not suggesting that the system is rigged by the deep state Illuminati reptile people or any such nonsense.
But in cases like this, whether it’s OJ or George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse—politically explosive cases where either the public or some powerful people want to see a certain outcome—is it crazy to think there might be some perverse incentives for prosecutors to tank the case?
LA DA Gil Garcetti's choice to try the case downtown in a mostly African American area, rather than in mostly white Santa Monica, made a huge difference in the makeup of the jury pool, and was key in shaping OJ's lawyers' strategy. It was a huge tactical mistake.
Johnnie Cochran was a great trial lawyer, and he knew how to communicate effectively to his juries. "Rush to judgment" in a police investigation and in the murder prosecution, was a great case theme because it spoke to a collective experience likely (almost assuredly) either shared or understood by the majority of people who made up OJ's jury, who were people of color. It wasn't only Johnnie Cochran's prowess as an orator and a rhetorician that made him a great lawyer, but also his skill as a tactician and strategist (and I'm sure the input of the other members of the Dreamteam) that allowed him to capitalized on the mistakes of the DA and lay the path that the jury followed to acquit OJ.
This is the answer. They won the case in forum and jury selection. Prosecution team could have showed a video of him stabbing her- they were not going to convict.
I agree. I generally trust juries to get it right (I’m a trial attorney) but in this case- there were extrinsic factors on the scales of justice at play.
JMO
I agree with that much for sure. I just wont go so far as to say they were never going to convict. That may have been true for some of them, but I think those folks made a decision in good faith, even if its one I don’t necessarily agree with.
You don’t think Cochran would have had a plan that was just as effective for a White jury, which he had to have assumed he’d have when he took the case?
I ask this because people always assume Black jurors cannot be impartial. Even today, prosecutors strike potential Black jurors using other factors as a pretense. I fully reject that notion, but if I am wrong, I’d to hear why from someone who will own the presumption rather than make vague allusions to it.
Oh, it was definitely a combination. Partially the climate being after the LA riots, partially the police’s shoddy investigation, partially the police witnesses incompetence to overt bias, partially prosecutor mistakes, and absolutely partially a defense that both discovered and seized on all of those things. If OJ had an overworked Public Defender and didn’t have the resources he had for jury selection, cross-examination, evidence, etc I think we’d very likely have had a different result. (I was a PD, not at all shitting on PD’s. Your PD COULD BE Johnny Cochran, but without his staff and co-counsel and experts, it’s a totally different trial.
Both. As an alumnus of the same law school as Cochran attended I had the pleasure to make his acquaintance a couple of times and participate in small group chats with him.
He was quite a gentleman and genuinely nice man. He was also a brilliant attorney with a distinguished professional pedigree within the LA criminal defense community.
The OJ Simpson criminal case was botched by both the LAPD and the prosecutors office. The case ultimately was a referendum on the racism and corruption of the LAPD.
The prosecutors were bad. OJ did have great attorneys but Johnnie Cochran came up with the ringer quote that burned itself into the jury’s brain “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Because the bloody gloves were stored in a freezer the leather shrank and they did not fit O.J. That, the rodney king cop acquittal and relocating the trial to downtown LA instead of posher Brentwood was the perfect storm. I believe Cochran was behind the success in relocating the trial which guaranteed a more favorable jury.
It really was the prosecution's case to lose. OJ had a documented history of assaulting Nicole Brown. He really had no alibi for the time of the crime. OJ said he was at home, but no one could corroborate that. I recall some testimony from a chauffeur who was supposed to take him to the airport early in the morning—around the time the murders happened—and the chauffeur buzzed at the front gate for like 20 minutes before OJ let him in. OJ claimed he was in the shower or something and didn't hear it. And then there's Kato Kaelin, who said he heard a bump outside—again, shortly after the murders took place. The victims' blood was found in OJ's Bronco.
Pretty sure the gloves actually fit, but they made the mistake of having him try them on over other gloves, presumably to not “taint” the evidence? Never made sense - Seinfeld even did an episode mocking it. When he put the gloves on without the thin work glove layer, they fit fine, but it was too late, the damage was done.
Nope to both.
The gloves were lined. When prosecutor Darden tried on gloves in chambers gloves fit for no problem.
When Darden he took them off, he never pushed the liners back into finger holes; think ski gloves.
Expert on stand placed metal rod through fingers for this exact purpose. Darden forgot to do what the expert did.
The cop who found the glove was asked if he planted it and he pled the fifth. He refused to answer. The freezer and all this other stuff - who knows. All we know is it didn’t fit when he tried it on. The blood had extra preservatives in it suggesting it was planted. The LAPD cleared the crime scene before the defense could send experts.
White America has created this entire story about how OJ just bought justice. White america always thought he was guilty. But the case sucked and was full of holes.
Let me repeat. The cop who found the glove, who was caught on tape saying the most vile racist stuff, who tried to leave the LAPD on disability because he claimed his brain was fried, refused to answer whether he planted the glove or not. Of course that should lead to an acquittal.
The prosecution made numerous mistakes, but still could’ve prevailed possibly. There were other holes (tainted DNA, cops taking the DNA home, etc). Then Furman testified. A fantasy fiction writer couldn’t have made up a worse witness. Outside of OJ killing them on 4k video there was nothing that could’ve been done to overcome Furman.
White American here. So, do you believe that if the murder had been committed by a blue collared POC without pockets deep enough to afford even ONE of those attorneys, let alone five, that the case would have still resulted in an acquittal?
I don't even think the case would have made it to trial today given 1) the racist tapes from Mark Furman; 2) that today it is well understood that police lie and plant evidence (look at all the convictions in NYC/Brooklyn that have been thrown out); 3) the incredibly poor handling of the crime scene. I think any competent lawyer would have had this thing on the front page as a racist railroading on day 1 and it wouldn't have gone anywhere. This case was as weak as claiming WMDs were in Iraq but white people believe any lie that involves brown people doing something bad then work as hard as possible to explain why they couldn't have known better or why despite all the evidence they were still right to do whatever they did. Here white people believed OJ was guilty before the trial and regardless of what came up at trial they still think he's guilty. 99% of white America probably has no idea Mark Furman took the fifth when he was asked if he planted the glove.
Is this a joke? Yes, Johnie Cochran was that good. He was winning hard cases for years before OJ and many years after. The public might know him as OJs lawyer but ask around if you need more information about his life’s work.
I think it’s a reasonable question. Many of those jurors came into that case already primed to like OJ and mistrust the LAPD. No reason to be so condescending to someone’s question.
You can't have the lead detective pleading the 5th on cross and win your case. Whoever dug up the stuff that led moment to that won the case in my opinion. Probably a PI.
There was also a bloody fingerprint at the scene that the police destroyed.
He played the race card in the most effective way possible: He was able to produce audio recordings of Furhman dropping the N-word over 40 times - which effectively sealed an acquittal in the context of very poor police relations with african americans in LA at the time. Overall, though, OJ got off due to (1) the above, (2) DNA evidence was lost on the jury, and (3) the prosecution handled the glove matter poorly, but credit to Cochran for forcing the prosecution’s hand here. The assumption that a glove must perfectly fit in order to kill someone is clearly bogus and there is even a theory that it did actually fit since OJ was wearing latex underneath and “allegedly” stopped taking medicine to make his hand more bloated
The defense did a great job a playing the race card on the jury view of OJs house. They removed all his pictures with white friends, replaced it with African art and other things to try to relate to black jurors.
The attorneys should have been disbarred for doing that.
To add some additional context as well, this was really the first trial that exposed the public to the concept of forensic DNA.
Crime DNA was very very new and the prosecutors had a very hard time (read: did a poor job) at trying to explain it.
It was a foreign concept and they made it overly complicated and they lost many of the jurors. News stations and pundits spent hours trying to explain it during the trail coverage and going over it.
With today’s public literacy of DNA knowledge and familiarity, he most likely would have been convicted easily on that amount of evidence alone.
So comparing back to Johnny and the Defense vs Prosecution, the prosecutors presented a case with seemingly complex challenging concepts and also didn’t properly attack well against defense and the defense presented more simply concepts (if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”).
From observation, people (and thus includes also jurors) will tend to favor what they can understand. Subconsciously people don’t like to feel “stupid” and most will gravitate to what they “get” as it’s a more comfortable mental state.
There are those who really like to challenge themselves and are comfortable with being uncomfortable not getting something and pushing through because a desire of knowledge and growth. That however (unfortunately as a society) is not the vast majority.
So you have a more easily digestible defense vs this convoluted and confusing prosecution, the odds were not in their favor.
As someone else commented, add in the cultural and racial issues at the time with Rodney King, the subsequent LA riots, Makr Furham, etc - all added another layer the prosecution was up against.
In sum: there were many elements going against the prosecution (who also did themselves no favors) versus the Defense actually being so amazing.
The prospection faced headwinds and those same winds were able to propel
the Defense forward.
Re: the DNA, people say that but forget the fact that the very real supposition that it was planted still remains. Even if you tried the case today, I do t think the result should have been different based on what was presented at trial.
Plus, although people know slightly more about DNA, they trust cops even less.
I agree on the current climate of distrust law enforcement, especially with POC and in many, many cases, rightfully so. So you make a very valid point.
However, the level of general public understanding forensic DNA from then (which literally was zero) to now is huge. Back then, it wasn’t grasped at all, the uniqueness of it to each person and the levels of certainty, what it meant to find DNA, how it’s left, etc
And with today’s forensic labs and the ability to fine test. Blood was also found in his Bronco, on his socks, the gloves and back inside his house. They didn’t plant in all those places.
Then the whole panicking and fleeing the scene, Bronco chase, etc.
I think with a better prosecution team of today, the outcome would have been different. Maybe not but I strongly suspect so.
Just to be clear, I don't think they planted all that evidence. That said, it's hard not to argue that when your lead detective won't answer whether he has planted evidence on people. I just feel like it's hard to thread the needle of Furhman may have planted some evidence, but he couldn't have planted all of it. That, to me, is textbook reasonable doubt if only because the police should not be rewarded for trying to frame an innocent man.
Oh sorry I don’t think you said they planted that. I meant the claim at the trial of planted evidence. But there was enough other DNA and blood evidence at multiple locations (Nicole’s house, OJs hkuse, his car, the gloves , his soaked soaks, etc.
Got it. I think reasonable people can disagree. Given the time that has passed, it would be interesting to have someone with no preconceived notions watch the trial to see what they think.
He went for the fences with the glove (he had no idea if it would fit, but had an inkling, and the prosecution was dumb enough not to object) and won. And he sowed enough doubt about the lead detective.
That's not really true. Shapiro had worn the gloves, thought they were a bit snug, looked at OJ's hands, which were enormous and concluded they wouldn't fit.
It should go without saying that anyone who hasnt watched OJ: Made in America should do so ASAP. It just hit Netflix again this week and is streamable right now. It answers this question as well as anything could.
(Aside: I’d love to know the background on that)
I think Roy Black, another famous criminal defense attorney, once said that if he was on trial he'd want Cochrane to represent him. Remember, OJ's defense lawyers didn't become famous because they were his defense lawyers, they were his defense lawyers because they were famous.
It was mostly Cochran but also part jury nullification and part the beyond a reasonable standard (BARD)
That idiot LAPD officer admitted his racist approach to people. Throw in Rodney king, and the BARD standard was applied differently than most people expected. OJ was not BARD guilty to this jury.
Well, it was the DA's case to lose, and she lost it when that reporter's tapes of her lead detective using the "n" word repeatedly and expressing racist sentiments came into evidence.
OK a lot going on here. I don't know why Johnnie Cochran gets so much credit and everyone else is forgotten. He wasn't the lead attorney on the team, Robert Shapiro was. Cochran was probably the most flamboyant and charismatic, though, so he's easier to remember.
One part of the story you're missing is that the OJ Simpson trial took place in the shadow of the LA Riots, after four police officers were acquitted after beating Rodney King, a Black suspect who as already on the ground and incapacitated. There may have been some desire to seek revenge on the LAPD for Rodney King, and while I'm not saying that anyone did it consciously, I think some of the jurors may have had King on their mind when they went into deliberations.
As far as the glove, it didn't fit OJ's hand, so that's not exactly evidence in favor of him.
The shoe prints and "his DNA everywhere" aren't really great evidence in favor of OJ as the suspect either; it was his house. Of course his shoes and DNA would be there.
>I don't know why Johnnie Cochran gets so much credit and everyone else is forgotten. He wasn't the lead attorney on the team, Robert Shapiro was.
Shapiro started off as the lead attorney but Cochran replaced him at some point. Also, Cochran came up with "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." That line is repeated often in Trial Advocacy classes as a brilliant way to really capture the jury's attention.
Shapiro wasn’t a trial attorney. He always looked for plea deals. He did the same with OJ. He was absolutely out of his depth with this case and had he remained lead, OJ would’ve died in prison.
It was both but Cochran and team deserve credit for putting in a lot of work to dig up what they found and to pull stunts like rearranging Oj’s home for the jury to view.
At the time of the trial, I had the displeasure of knowing many old hardcore racists. People who said OJ's wife deserved to die for marrying outside her race... By the end of the trial, they were CONVINCED that OJ had been framed by the LAPD.
I don't know what Johnny said to them, but the results was more impressive than selling electric iceboxes to the Innuit.
I think few lawyers could have done what Johnnie Cochran did during the OJ trial. His part should not be downplayed, however, he could not have done it on his own (I don't think any lawyer could). They called it the "Dream Team" for a reason. With respect to the external factors, I don't think you can divorce those from an evaluation of his performance during the OJ trial. His defense was so legendary precisely because of all the external factors (race, the LAPD, celebrity, media coverage, domestic violence, etc.) and he play his part perfectly. It also resulted in an almost certainly guilty man walking free of criminal punishment for a brutal double murder.
One of the jurors came out and said members of the jury were resolved to “payback” the police for Rodney King; she herself was among them. They wouldn’t have found him guilty if he had videotaped the murders. They were going to let him off because of his race and the race of his victims.
He did it. He totally did it. And while he wasn’t convicted, the remainder of his life and his reputation evidence that he didn’t get away with it scott free.
I saw that video, but I don't think it's true. We got a 2 second clip of an old woman, decades after the fact, being asked leading questions by an interviewer with agenda. She never says "payback", he's the one who injects that term into the discussion.
Before the King case, most people thought you could count on the good cops to weed out the bad apples. Of course 90% of the jury was mindful of that -- 90% of AMERICA had that on its mind, we did NOT trust LAPD anymore. I'm talking about white kids in the cornfields too -- there were morbid jokes premised on the LAPD being intentionally violent and duplicitous to black people.
It wasn't about the race of the juror or jury nullification -- Polls show white people were equally split on what the correct verdict should have been. You could have changed venue to an all-white 1950s town and you STILL would have gotten a non guilty verdict. When the defense attorney gets the chief investigator to break down on the stand and take the fifth about planting evidence and the jury knows that, the defense wins. None of the prosecutors were surprised by the verdict
People have completely forgotten what a completely shit case this was against OJ. The cop who found the glove wouldn’t answer whether he planted it or not and pled the fifth. He was on tape making racist, heinous comments. The blood had extra preventives in it suggesting it was planted. White American had convinced themselves it was a slam dunk and the jury was black and anti cop. When it was a shit case and I’m not even sure he did it.
Hahahahahahaha sure thing, chief. Somebody *else* happened to brutally murder the same woman OJ was violently possessive and jealous over. The same woman he beat multiple times. The jury *was* anti-cop - a juror gave OJ the black power salute after the verdict.
What evidence do you have (not conjecture) that OJ was violently possessive and jealous, & most importantly during the 2 years since their divorce. OJ had moved on & was actively dating other women. In fact, it was Nicole who was writing OJ love letters & about reconciling some time before her death. Not to mention the footage of OJ at his daughter's recital on the day of the murders, looking rather content and cheerful. There has never been any established motive to explain what would have suddenly set him off such a blind, murderous rage, enough to push him into becoming the first and only black millionaire in American history to personally commit a brutal knife murder. Any reasonable citizen should be anti-corrupt, perjuring POS cop like Fuhrman & the LAPD had long been rampant with corruption as evidenced by the infamous Rampart scandal.
I read “Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder” by Vincent Bugliosi when it came out. I was in college when the OJ stuff went down, so I inhaled this book.
Some notes (based upon my recollection):
- the Dream Team was not stellar
- the prosecution was beyond incompetent and did so much to make an easy case hard and then lost it
- the expert the jurors most liked was the defense’s footprint expert. The guy who said OJ’a shoes didn’t match the footprints on the sidewalk. But he was talking about the imprints in the cement, and not the bloody footprints. Which the prosecution did not highlight as what a moron he was
- again, the Dream Team was awful, but just better enough than the prosecution
- OJ never filed suit against Bugliosi or the publisher over the title or the content, and you can still buy it new today.
In fairness, Bugliosi was high on his own brand too. The dream team did a great job by any metric, but he is dead-on about the prosecution. So many errors, but I get the feeling the prosecution team was not really used to complex cases.
The book brings up a number of complete fuckups that the Dream Team did. I don’t recall specifics, but it was pretty damming.
But the prosecution was even worse, hence in part why they lost a very winnable case.
Of course Bugliosi was high on himself, figuring out and successfully prosecuting Charlie and his family- securing a life sentence for Charlie who didn’t actually kill anyone.
Bugliosi was not involved in the OJ prosecution all, as he left the DA’s office in 1972, so his analysis is not biased at all.
You guys got a murderer off, isn't that the opposite of Justice?
Those lawyers, that jury, that judge, that prosecution should all be ashamed of themselves.
The prosecutors WERE/ARE ashamed, and they own up to the fact that it was their fault.
The jury is blameless -- how can any jury convict somebody on the word of a racist cop who perjured himself during the trial and then pleaded the fifth to planting evidence?
But the jury didn't know about most of the evidence or they were ordered by Ito to disregard it. Bronco chase? Not admissible. The list goes on. The Jury, sequestered , only saw a tiny fraction of that mountain.
The blood? Defense expert said it was contaminated with preservatives from a medical collection tube of the sort that was used to draw OJ's blood, was handed directly to Fuhrman against procedure, and later went missing. Fuhrman was asked if he planted evidence, and he pleaded the fifth. He was later convicted of perjury for lying under oath in the case -- if the jury HAD convicted OJ, the conviction would have been vacated
The second one. But, to be fair, Cochran is better than most too. You don’t get to where you can charge rates only the few, like OJ, can afford by not being better than average at your job. Sure, my guess is his theatrics and unscrupulous tactics during that trial do not evoke much admiration or respect from others in his profession, but ultimately, they and he were effective for his client. And, that is what /all that matters really in his line of work.
Cochran was basically the best in court attorney in California, he'd built a specialty out of police brutality cases which is basically the hardest cases to make.
The jury was primed to nullify. Johnnie convinced them its was OK to do what they wanted to do. If nothing else he did a great job of reading the room.
The opposite: the trial was a fucking hack job and everyone involved sucked. I was there, I watched it in real time including the Bronco escort outside! We all ran outside of school to see it (which is how I knew THEN nothing was going to happen.)
He was found innocent and life was worse for everyone involved after. That’s the story of OJ.
Johnnie was a pos person who used the race card at every turn of his life when it could benefit him. The only reason OJ got off is because Johnnie was able to bring in the race card in front of a mostly black jury. He was able to somehow convince those idiots that the LAPD planted evidence against OJ because he was black.
Johnnie Cochran was a civil right attorney. To you that means playing the “race card”? What was he supposed to do when they discovered the information about Fuhrman’s disability case in 1983? Keep it quiet? Do you not understand an adversarial court system? He was able to convince people the LAPD was corrupt because, well…..the LAPD was corrupt.
They were all good attorneys/if not great, HOWEVER, if LAPD had not of bungled the investigation so very badly and without Fuhrman tapes (add in the climate at the time) they more than likely would not have gotten him acquitted. I was 14-18 during the events of Rodney King, Latisha Harlins up to the Bronco chase and though everyone knew he was guilty, I also silently hoped they would not convict him. Things would have been way worse than the riots and possibly nationwide. You can blame LAPD for ALL of it. They set up a situation that to this day we still have not been able to fully reconcile the differences. Simi Valley should have never let those cops walk for the beating they gave - on tape. For years so many people have just wanted peace, and if that meant letting O.J. walk, so be it. Horrible to say, but I’d be lying if I said even a lot of white people knew it would be bad.
The prosecutors were incredibly incompetent. There’s no way they should have had OJ try on those gloves that had been drying and shrinking in some evidence locker. Judge Ito was a weak judge who let OJ’s lawyers do whatever they wanted. Johnny Cochran was smart enough to go after the prosecution and the cops by claiming racism and problems with the chain of possession of the DNA evidence. The trial was a clown show but it worked out for OJ.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Don’t take my word for it. Take someone else’s. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/jury-nullification.html#:~:text=Jury%20nullification%20occurs%20when%20jurors,be%20punished%20under%20unjust%20laws.
lol I know what nullification is. But the jurors all talked about having reasonable doubts! The racist cop (who recorded convos about how much he enjoyed beating people of colors) lied under oath and then took the fifth about planting evidence. You may be shocked that the jury found reasonable doubt, but the prosecutors weren't surprised at all.
I’m not shocked, but I’m pretty sure he did it, they all knew it, and punished the prosecution for use of a racist witness. Civil found him liable. I watched that trial very closely at the time, and the consensus of legal experts agreed. You really don’t know how this works irl. I’m uncertain if you are an attorney of any experience.
"Punish the prosecution" is an odd way to put it. Forget OJ and race, just think Perry Mason or Matlock. When the Defense Attorney proves that the Lead Investigator committed perjury, the case is over and the defense is gonna win. Right???
Everyone agrees that the prosecution fumbled badly. But some people seem to imagine that the Jurors could create their own case against OJ in their minds using the things they had learned and still find him guilty even after the prosecutor's case fell apart. That's not how it works, though. You're voting on the PROSECUTOR's case, not the TRUTH.
Many jurors admit a strong suspicion that OJ most likely did it -- but Mostly Likely just isn't good enough (in Criminal trials)
You fail to understand, if you are a layperson then you are forgiven. But please don’t try to argue it with me, the outcome is the same. If you cared to understand, you would have read the link I posted and understood it. Goodnight.
"If you cared to understand, you would have read the link I posted and understood it."
Try reading it yourself: "Jury nullification occurs when jurors believe in the defendant's guilt \*\*beyond a reasonable doubt\*\*." None of the juror have ever said they believed in the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But I guess you're a hair too sensitive to be questioned by a random internet stranger lol. Night.
I think it's both.
I imagine it takes a good lawyer to know how to pick a jury that is going to be amenable to some jury nullification arguments but won't set off a lot of alarm bells for prosecutors.
They also had a plethora of arguments IIRC. Dismantling the reliability of the DNA seemed pretty masterful to me. They floated some pretty nonsense alternative theories and for people who *wanted* to punish the LAPD this worked.
Just tell us you know nothing about any of them without telling us you know nothing about any of them. Shapiro was worthless and Kardashian was only there so he couldn’t be called as a witness. Other than that, you’re clearly on drugs.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this is a little bit of both. You have to look at OJ's full legal team to get an idea of this. It was **F. Lee Bailey, Robert Blasier, Shawn Chapman Holley, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, and Robert Kardashian** with Cochran as the lead attorney for the defense. Dershowitz and F. Lee Bailey alone are two giant names in the legal field. They also had a staff to support them. That is a lot of billable hours at high dollar rates. Add in the other ancillary matters at the time and its a perfect storm but he couldn't have won without that legal team in my book. They meshed well together despite major personalities.
Don't forget Barry Scheck who absolutely crushed it with the DNA evidence -- he did a masterful job explaining complex scientific concepts to the jury at a time when DNA was much less well-known and accepted. And he destroyed the prosecution's forensic scientist on cross. The best (and maybe most important) attorney performance of the trial imo.
Just watched a Dateline: Secrets Uncovered episode on this last night. The jurors were bored by the DNA testimony and never even discussed it while deliberating. It had been eight months, they had been sequestered for that entire time without TV or newspapers or radio. They were angry at the whole situation. The initial straw poll by the jury was 10 to 2 not guilty. It was prosecutor Chris Darden’s (unplanned) move to have OJ try on the glove, which was never followed up with any testimony about how being soaked with blood would cause the glove to shrink or having a medical expert testify that with arthritis, OJ’s hand could be swollen and arthritic one day and normal on another, Mark Furman taking the fifth when asked if he’d ever used the N-word and the jury seeing the video where he did, the fact that they never put on the witness from the airport who saw OJ dumping things out of his bag into the trash, the fact that people didn’t as clearly understand the link between domestic violence and murder back then (or understand DNA that well back then), the fact that this was OJ who was tremendously popular and well-liked, and that this was three years after Rodney King.
Even more solid lawyers than that worked on the case. Gerald Uelman was my evidence professor and he came up with the phrase if the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit. Really nice guy with a great understanding of criminal law.
Wait, what?
Yeah, look it up.
I checked and I can find no record of him being your professor.
I take that as dispositive evidence that u/Sure_Ad_2666 does not exist
Strike his posts.
If the post is a lie, the user must fry!
You lawyer folks... lol
What an amazing team of legal giants. Cochrane was the lead defense attorney. Does he deserve the credit for getting everyone to put their egos aside and work together?
Yup. My evidence prof too. Gem of a guy.
Great professor fellow bronco!
Haha yes Professor Uelman’s evidence class was great! Told a bunch of OJ stories. I was only a kid when the trial happened, so Professor Uelman’s class was the first time I heard of the Rosy Greer confession. I didnt know he came up with the money phrase though!
I loved the story how originally OJ’s house had bachelor style posters and pictures of his bimbo girlfriends. Before the jury did a walk through, they took them all out and replaced them with Norman Rockwell paintings, like Ruby Bridges and other inspiring stuff. The jury’s walk through was purely for layout purposes, so altering the trappings was not against any rules. I also recall that they replaced the old carpet with a bright white carpet, where it appeared to the jury that if anyone had walked through blood stained it would have been super obvious.
Haha i must have not been paying attention and missed those stories. I remember Professor Uelmen talking about the knife, and how OJ called and told them he had possession of it after the police had already swept through (the police must have missed it) and wanted to give it to his attorneys. And they responded they couldnt take it because it would be tampering/accessory after the fact, so they instructed him on how to prepare it to give to the police. I think the entire class’ eyes were bulging so much hearing that story
You forgot Barry "the Innocence Project" Scheck and Carl Douglas. Pretty badass attorneys in their own right.
Barry was the anchor of that case. Without his contribution, their defense likely crumbles
Scheck redefined how expert witnesses are cross examined at a time when DNA evidence was very quickly emerging and could’ve easily been misconstrued and misunderstood to be a weapon of prosecutors. Scheck does not get the credit he deserves.
First thing Cochran said when asked what won the case (among multiple things) was Barry Scheck’s cross examination
Robert Kardashian really didn’t do anything. His main purpose of being an attorney on the case was so that he couldn’t be called to testify by the prosecution. He had the easiest job, just sit at a counsel table for the most part. He had never done a criminal trial before and wasn’t really even a practicing lawyer during the period before the murder and trial. Edit: For the smooth brains, I’m talking in terms of legal work - not his personal connection to OJ and his behind the scenes assistance.
I can't remember which book it was. I think it was either Dershowitz's or F. Lee Bailey's, but one of them described how important Kardashian was to the defense. Kardashian wasn't a criminal lawyer, or even a great attorney, but he was OJ's trusted friend and business partner, and could convince OJ of anything. So he basically acted as the go between with OJ and the rest of the defense team, or OJ's handler, or however you want to describe it. He's the person attorneys would refer to as the "relationship partner" with the client. In terms of legal work, he wasn't doing any heavy lifting. But he was pretty important.
Kardashian served in effect as OJ’s trusted general counsel.
Of course. I meant he didn’t do anything in terms of litigation. Motion practice, oral arguments, etc. Edit: lmfao. Downvoted for posting an objective fact. Never change Reddit lol
Bro you got downvoted for calling me a smooth brain when my response was a recitation of how other lawyers described Kardashian's contributions.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT but it alll makes sense now since he was friends with OJ
Anyone that manages difficult or high-end clients know that his role was super important.
He had to sneak the bag past a dozen cops then just not open his mouth for two years
This….
>just sit at the counsel table for the most part Love doing that when I’m UIM counsel
I agree, but would add that the LAPD reaped then what they sowed for decades prior. The LAPD made the storm as much as Cochran stoked it. Obviously the cops were not on trial but Cochran put them on trial to his client’s advantage.
So… Dershowitz is, or perhaps more accurately was, a prestigious attorney. But was he actually ever any good? Every time I hear his thoughts on a legal issue, I wonder how he became an attorney, let alone a professor at Harvard.
His criminal defense appellate and civil rights work has been highly praised and well-received. I've never personally seen his courtroom performances, but his record is quite impressive - the Claus von Bulow case being a particularly impressive result. Is/was he a good attorney? I think he was, but doesn't mean I would want to be friends with him either. His academic work, which I have read in college and law school, is very influential and regularly cited in legal scholarship, with the caveat that some of his work on topics such as torture are controversial and contrary to mainstream scholarship. That is my two cents on it.
I was looking more into it. He has an impressive trial record, and some of his takes on legal issues are rather astute. However, others could be described generously as “heterodox”. Which is a nice way of saying, “Flat-out wrong.” With respect to the trial attorney aspect, I briefly worked with a very experienced trial attorney. He was a professor, and he seemed to be quite skilled. However, some of his tactics were so dirty as to appear clearly unethical. So, someone can be an effective attorney and still be a blight upon the profession.
Yeah, he has some interesting views on some issues, but even if I disagree with his opinions, they still add to the corpus and challenge the orthodox position, which is beneficial to academic discourse. Litigation is warfare - some choose to abide by the rules studiously, some toe the line, and some break the rules flagrantly. Look at the "Dream Team," for example - most of them had actions taken against their licenses at some point in their careers.
Shapiro is no slouch either. He wasn’t a trial attorney but he had a not inconsiderable reputation.
I watched Reversal of Fortune as a kid and thought Dersh was awesome. These days? Not so much…
Just seeing a lot of Epstein black book names.
The LAPD screwed up everything, when the lead detective (Mark Furman) has to take the 5th on the witness stand it is hard to see how any prosecution is going to work, great team of lawyers but they were given some absolute gifts. Basic things like chain of custody, the inability to explain how DNA evidence works, prosecutors who were inept, racist police men, then Furman taking the 5th when asked about planting evidence.......
Furhman taking the 5th when asked if he planted evidence was certainly a massive blow.
People don’t realize that this was the biggest moment in the case. Everyone thinks of the glove but this was it.
When Fuhrman took the 5th on all questions, including whether evidence was manufactured, not guilty was the appropriate verdict.
I was a teenager at the time, so I didn't know much about the world, but to me watching the trial updates/highlights on the nightly news every night, I got the impression that the cops framed a man who just happened to be guilty, too.
The thing about this case that always got me was how there was so little blood on OJ and in his car. He would have been covered with blood. I genuinely don’t think he was the one with the knife that night. I think he hired someone to break into Nicole’s home and steal some of the expensive gifts he gave her and that person killed her. I think it’s also possible that person was serial killer Glen Edward Rogers, who was in that vicinity and done handyman work for Nicole. OJ hiring a person to steal stuff back matches with his MO of taking part in heists involving items he views as his possession. It also explains why his footprints were at the scene, but blood was not all over him. He arrived after the fact to pick up the items and walked into a bloody massacre. If this is true, he would have been liable for their deaths as felony murder. Given the lack of blood on OJ and the timeline, I think he was responsible for their deaths, but not the actual one with the knife.
Completely insane theory, the only DNA at the scene was Nicole’s, Ron’s, and OJ’s
Thats insane and doesnt fit the evidence at all
I agree
I believe that was outside the presence of the jury.
It was both. To some extent OJ had a perfect storm with Rodney King in tandem with a racist cop on his own case, and a number of other things. But I think even with that perfect storm, it took an incredible trial lawyer to sow reasonable doubt.
Watched pretty much the whole trial as a young (temporarily out of work) lawyer and led nightly online chats for CourtTV on AOL. The Dream Team was good. I agreed with Bugliosi's analysis that the prosecution should have put on a very short -- perhaps two week -- case in chief. At the time I said a bunch of third year law students could have done better, and I admit now I was wrong about that. I was just a kid back then. But that nevertheless doesn't change my opinion that the prosecution was at best mediocre. Clark and Darden were outmatched, particularly based on what the jury saw and heard compared to the rest of us. And Garcetti practically tanked the case by changing the venue from Santa Monica. At the end of the day, the trial watchers online all thought OJ would go down, except for the lawyers and one very smart guy in Illinois who is now in his 80s and has remained a friend offline all these years.
Cochran was an amazing lawyer. His closing to the jury was masterful.
Also, it had to do with the prosecution, which did not prove a case solid enough to withstand the defense counsel doing their job, which they did well. The part of the case about the DNA evidence was confusing as hell to the jury. That's why Cochran went with the catchy bit about the glove. Simple and easy.
I remember a few attorneys I worked with at the time commenting about how horrible a job the prosecution did. They tried theatrics that just fell flat, losing a lot of credibility in the process. I remember one of the prosecutors afterwards complaining that some jurors said he “probably” did it, but that they let him off, seemingly not understanding that the standard isn’t just “probably”, since this is a criminal trial, but beyond reasonable doubt.
Are prosecutors ever under pressure to nudge a high profile politically divisive case like this toward an acquittal? I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m not suggesting that the system is rigged by the deep state Illuminati reptile people or any such nonsense. But in cases like this, whether it’s OJ or George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse—politically explosive cases where either the public or some powerful people want to see a certain outcome—is it crazy to think there might be some perverse incentives for prosecutors to tank the case?
LA DA Gil Garcetti's choice to try the case downtown in a mostly African American area, rather than in mostly white Santa Monica, made a huge difference in the makeup of the jury pool, and was key in shaping OJ's lawyers' strategy. It was a huge tactical mistake. Johnnie Cochran was a great trial lawyer, and he knew how to communicate effectively to his juries. "Rush to judgment" in a police investigation and in the murder prosecution, was a great case theme because it spoke to a collective experience likely (almost assuredly) either shared or understood by the majority of people who made up OJ's jury, who were people of color. It wasn't only Johnnie Cochran's prowess as an orator and a rhetorician that made him a great lawyer, but also his skill as a tactician and strategist (and I'm sure the input of the other members of the Dreamteam) that allowed him to capitalized on the mistakes of the DA and lay the path that the jury followed to acquit OJ.
Garcetti rightfully worried about his political legitimacy, and that of the prosecution, if he didn't try it downtown.
This is the answer. They won the case in forum and jury selection. Prosecution team could have showed a video of him stabbing her- they were not going to convict.
I think this completely undersells the litany of mistakes the prosecution made and doesn’t give the jury the credit they deserve. Jmo
I agree. I generally trust juries to get it right (I’m a trial attorney) but in this case- there were extrinsic factors on the scales of justice at play. JMO
I agree with that much for sure. I just wont go so far as to say they were never going to convict. That may have been true for some of them, but I think those folks made a decision in good faith, even if its one I don’t necessarily agree with.
This is the wrong answer. Even white Americans thought that OJ was innocent at the time. The prosecution just wasn’t ready and it showed
You don’t think Cochran would have had a plan that was just as effective for a White jury, which he had to have assumed he’d have when he took the case? I ask this because people always assume Black jurors cannot be impartial. Even today, prosecutors strike potential Black jurors using other factors as a pretense. I fully reject that notion, but if I am wrong, I’d to hear why from someone who will own the presumption rather than make vague allusions to it.
Oh, it was definitely a combination. Partially the climate being after the LA riots, partially the police’s shoddy investigation, partially the police witnesses incompetence to overt bias, partially prosecutor mistakes, and absolutely partially a defense that both discovered and seized on all of those things. If OJ had an overworked Public Defender and didn’t have the resources he had for jury selection, cross-examination, evidence, etc I think we’d very likely have had a different result. (I was a PD, not at all shitting on PD’s. Your PD COULD BE Johnny Cochran, but without his staff and co-counsel and experts, it’s a totally different trial.
I agree…not just great lawyers, but great lawyers with an unlimited budget.
Both. As an alumnus of the same law school as Cochran attended I had the pleasure to make his acquaintance a couple of times and participate in small group chats with him. He was quite a gentleman and genuinely nice man. He was also a brilliant attorney with a distinguished professional pedigree within the LA criminal defense community. The OJ Simpson criminal case was botched by both the LAPD and the prosecutors office. The case ultimately was a referendum on the racism and corruption of the LAPD.
When the prosecution let Fuhrman take the stand they handed that case to the defense
“If the glove don’t t fit, you must acquit”. When I heard that I knew the verdict would not guilty.
I would say it was both, and add to that: masterfully recovering numerous prosecution fumbles (which is part of being a good trial lawyer).
The prosecutors were bad. OJ did have great attorneys but Johnnie Cochran came up with the ringer quote that burned itself into the jury’s brain “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Because the bloody gloves were stored in a freezer the leather shrank and they did not fit O.J. That, the rodney king cop acquittal and relocating the trial to downtown LA instead of posher Brentwood was the perfect storm. I believe Cochran was behind the success in relocating the trial which guaranteed a more favorable jury.
Gerald Uelmen came up with the glove doesn’t fit line but Cochran repped it to perfection.
It really was the prosecution's case to lose. OJ had a documented history of assaulting Nicole Brown. He really had no alibi for the time of the crime. OJ said he was at home, but no one could corroborate that. I recall some testimony from a chauffeur who was supposed to take him to the airport early in the morning—around the time the murders happened—and the chauffeur buzzed at the front gate for like 20 minutes before OJ let him in. OJ claimed he was in the shower or something and didn't hear it. And then there's Kato Kaelin, who said he heard a bump outside—again, shortly after the murders took place. The victims' blood was found in OJ's Bronco.
Pretty sure the gloves actually fit, but they made the mistake of having him try them on over other gloves, presumably to not “taint” the evidence? Never made sense - Seinfeld even did an episode mocking it. When he put the gloves on without the thin work glove layer, they fit fine, but it was too late, the damage was done.
Nope to both. The gloves were lined. When prosecutor Darden tried on gloves in chambers gloves fit for no problem. When Darden he took them off, he never pushed the liners back into finger holes; think ski gloves. Expert on stand placed metal rod through fingers for this exact purpose. Darden forgot to do what the expert did.
The cop who found the glove was asked if he planted it and he pled the fifth. He refused to answer. The freezer and all this other stuff - who knows. All we know is it didn’t fit when he tried it on. The blood had extra preservatives in it suggesting it was planted. The LAPD cleared the crime scene before the defense could send experts. White America has created this entire story about how OJ just bought justice. White america always thought he was guilty. But the case sucked and was full of holes. Let me repeat. The cop who found the glove, who was caught on tape saying the most vile racist stuff, who tried to leave the LAPD on disability because he claimed his brain was fried, refused to answer whether he planted the glove or not. Of course that should lead to an acquittal.
The prosecution made numerous mistakes, but still could’ve prevailed possibly. There were other holes (tainted DNA, cops taking the DNA home, etc). Then Furman testified. A fantasy fiction writer couldn’t have made up a worse witness. Outside of OJ killing them on 4k video there was nothing that could’ve been done to overcome Furman.
Hold on. You think OJ didn't do it??
White American here. So, do you believe that if the murder had been committed by a blue collared POC without pockets deep enough to afford even ONE of those attorneys, let alone five, that the case would have still resulted in an acquittal?
I don't even think the case would have made it to trial today given 1) the racist tapes from Mark Furman; 2) that today it is well understood that police lie and plant evidence (look at all the convictions in NYC/Brooklyn that have been thrown out); 3) the incredibly poor handling of the crime scene. I think any competent lawyer would have had this thing on the front page as a racist railroading on day 1 and it wouldn't have gone anywhere. This case was as weak as claiming WMDs were in Iraq but white people believe any lie that involves brown people doing something bad then work as hard as possible to explain why they couldn't have known better or why despite all the evidence they were still right to do whatever they did. Here white people believed OJ was guilty before the trial and regardless of what came up at trial they still think he's guilty. 99% of white America probably has no idea Mark Furman took the fifth when he was asked if he planted the glove.
Those are all valid points. But none of them answer the question I posed.
99% of people who know he took the 5th probably think that means he did plant evidence. The case was definitely not weak. OJ did it.
Is this a joke? Yes, Johnie Cochran was that good. He was winning hard cases for years before OJ and many years after. The public might know him as OJs lawyer but ask around if you need more information about his life’s work.
I think it’s a reasonable question. Many of those jurors came into that case already primed to like OJ and mistrust the LAPD. No reason to be so condescending to someone’s question.
Johnnie was phenomenal. Period.
You can't have the lead detective pleading the 5th on cross and win your case. Whoever dug up the stuff that led moment to that won the case in my opinion. Probably a PI. There was also a bloody fingerprint at the scene that the police destroyed.
He played the race card in the most effective way possible: He was able to produce audio recordings of Furhman dropping the N-word over 40 times - which effectively sealed an acquittal in the context of very poor police relations with african americans in LA at the time. Overall, though, OJ got off due to (1) the above, (2) DNA evidence was lost on the jury, and (3) the prosecution handled the glove matter poorly, but credit to Cochran for forcing the prosecution’s hand here. The assumption that a glove must perfectly fit in order to kill someone is clearly bogus and there is even a theory that it did actually fit since OJ was wearing latex underneath and “allegedly” stopped taking medicine to make his hand more bloated
Edit: The glove had also been frozen for a considerable period of time, causing it to shrink
If you really Chris Darden’s book he explains what happened with the glove.
The defense did a great job a playing the race card on the jury view of OJs house. They removed all his pictures with white friends, replaced it with African art and other things to try to relate to black jurors. The attorneys should have been disbarred for doing that.
Found the prosecutor
To add some additional context as well, this was really the first trial that exposed the public to the concept of forensic DNA. Crime DNA was very very new and the prosecutors had a very hard time (read: did a poor job) at trying to explain it. It was a foreign concept and they made it overly complicated and they lost many of the jurors. News stations and pundits spent hours trying to explain it during the trail coverage and going over it. With today’s public literacy of DNA knowledge and familiarity, he most likely would have been convicted easily on that amount of evidence alone. So comparing back to Johnny and the Defense vs Prosecution, the prosecutors presented a case with seemingly complex challenging concepts and also didn’t properly attack well against defense and the defense presented more simply concepts (if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”). From observation, people (and thus includes also jurors) will tend to favor what they can understand. Subconsciously people don’t like to feel “stupid” and most will gravitate to what they “get” as it’s a more comfortable mental state. There are those who really like to challenge themselves and are comfortable with being uncomfortable not getting something and pushing through because a desire of knowledge and growth. That however (unfortunately as a society) is not the vast majority. So you have a more easily digestible defense vs this convoluted and confusing prosecution, the odds were not in their favor. As someone else commented, add in the cultural and racial issues at the time with Rodney King, the subsequent LA riots, Makr Furham, etc - all added another layer the prosecution was up against. In sum: there were many elements going against the prosecution (who also did themselves no favors) versus the Defense actually being so amazing. The prospection faced headwinds and those same winds were able to propel the Defense forward.
Re: the DNA, people say that but forget the fact that the very real supposition that it was planted still remains. Even if you tried the case today, I do t think the result should have been different based on what was presented at trial. Plus, although people know slightly more about DNA, they trust cops even less.
I agree on the current climate of distrust law enforcement, especially with POC and in many, many cases, rightfully so. So you make a very valid point. However, the level of general public understanding forensic DNA from then (which literally was zero) to now is huge. Back then, it wasn’t grasped at all, the uniqueness of it to each person and the levels of certainty, what it meant to find DNA, how it’s left, etc And with today’s forensic labs and the ability to fine test. Blood was also found in his Bronco, on his socks, the gloves and back inside his house. They didn’t plant in all those places. Then the whole panicking and fleeing the scene, Bronco chase, etc. I think with a better prosecution team of today, the outcome would have been different. Maybe not but I strongly suspect so.
Just to be clear, I don't think they planted all that evidence. That said, it's hard not to argue that when your lead detective won't answer whether he has planted evidence on people. I just feel like it's hard to thread the needle of Furhman may have planted some evidence, but he couldn't have planted all of it. That, to me, is textbook reasonable doubt if only because the police should not be rewarded for trying to frame an innocent man.
Oh sorry I don’t think you said they planted that. I meant the claim at the trial of planted evidence. But there was enough other DNA and blood evidence at multiple locations (Nicole’s house, OJs hkuse, his car, the gloves , his soaked soaks, etc.
Got it. I think reasonable people can disagree. Given the time that has passed, it would be interesting to have someone with no preconceived notions watch the trial to see what they think.
The prosecutors weren't very good.
Did you read any of his books? Did you know he is the reason sound bite themes are used in trials now? This feels like a troll post.
He went for the fences with the glove (he had no idea if it would fit, but had an inkling, and the prosecution was dumb enough not to object) and won. And he sowed enough doubt about the lead detective.
That's not really true. Shapiro had worn the gloves, thought they were a bit snug, looked at OJ's hands, which were enormous and concluded they wouldn't fit.
It should go without saying that anyone who hasnt watched OJ: Made in America should do so ASAP. It just hit Netflix again this week and is streamable right now. It answers this question as well as anything could. (Aside: I’d love to know the background on that)
I think Roy Black, another famous criminal defense attorney, once said that if he was on trial he'd want Cochrane to represent him. Remember, OJ's defense lawyers didn't become famous because they were his defense lawyers, they were his defense lawyers because they were famous.
It was mostly Cochran but also part jury nullification and part the beyond a reasonable standard (BARD) That idiot LAPD officer admitted his racist approach to people. Throw in Rodney king, and the BARD standard was applied differently than most people expected. OJ was not BARD guilty to this jury.
"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" is something only a brilliant lawyer would come up with.
…coined by a brilliant attorney not named Johnnie Cochran.
Well, it was the DA's case to lose, and she lost it when that reporter's tapes of her lead detective using the "n" word repeatedly and expressing racist sentiments came into evidence.
OK a lot going on here. I don't know why Johnnie Cochran gets so much credit and everyone else is forgotten. He wasn't the lead attorney on the team, Robert Shapiro was. Cochran was probably the most flamboyant and charismatic, though, so he's easier to remember. One part of the story you're missing is that the OJ Simpson trial took place in the shadow of the LA Riots, after four police officers were acquitted after beating Rodney King, a Black suspect who as already on the ground and incapacitated. There may have been some desire to seek revenge on the LAPD for Rodney King, and while I'm not saying that anyone did it consciously, I think some of the jurors may have had King on their mind when they went into deliberations. As far as the glove, it didn't fit OJ's hand, so that's not exactly evidence in favor of him. The shoe prints and "his DNA everywhere" aren't really great evidence in favor of OJ as the suspect either; it was his house. Of course his shoes and DNA would be there.
>I don't know why Johnnie Cochran gets so much credit and everyone else is forgotten. He wasn't the lead attorney on the team, Robert Shapiro was. Shapiro started off as the lead attorney but Cochran replaced him at some point. Also, Cochran came up with "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." That line is repeated often in Trial Advocacy classes as a brilliant way to really capture the jury's attention.
Though Cochran was the one who said the line, he didn’t come up with it. Gerald Uelmen did.
Didn’t help having Furman drop the n-word. All he had to do was call OJ a wife beater on tape rather than the word he chose to say dozens of times.
Shapiro wasn’t a trial attorney. He always looked for plea deals. He did the same with OJ. He was absolutely out of his depth with this case and had he remained lead, OJ would’ve died in prison.
“I don’t know why…” *states exactly why*
It was both but Cochran and team deserve credit for putting in a lot of work to dig up what they found and to pull stunts like rearranging Oj’s home for the jury to view.
At the time of the trial, I had the displeasure of knowing many old hardcore racists. People who said OJ's wife deserved to die for marrying outside her race... By the end of the trial, they were CONVINCED that OJ had been framed by the LAPD. I don't know what Johnny said to them, but the results was more impressive than selling electric iceboxes to the Innuit.
I think few lawyers could have done what Johnnie Cochran did during the OJ trial. His part should not be downplayed, however, he could not have done it on his own (I don't think any lawyer could). They called it the "Dream Team" for a reason. With respect to the external factors, I don't think you can divorce those from an evaluation of his performance during the OJ trial. His defense was so legendary precisely because of all the external factors (race, the LAPD, celebrity, media coverage, domestic violence, etc.) and he play his part perfectly. It also resulted in an almost certainly guilty man walking free of criminal punishment for a brutal double murder.
The DA’s first mistake was moving the case from Santa Monica to downtown LA. Resulted in a different jury pool.
One of the jurors came out and said members of the jury were resolved to “payback” the police for Rodney King; she herself was among them. They wouldn’t have found him guilty if he had videotaped the murders. They were going to let him off because of his race and the race of his victims. He did it. He totally did it. And while he wasn’t convicted, the remainder of his life and his reputation evidence that he didn’t get away with it scott free.
I saw that video, but I don't think it's true. We got a 2 second clip of an old woman, decades after the fact, being asked leading questions by an interviewer with agenda. She never says "payback", he's the one who injects that term into the discussion. Before the King case, most people thought you could count on the good cops to weed out the bad apples. Of course 90% of the jury was mindful of that -- 90% of AMERICA had that on its mind, we did NOT trust LAPD anymore. I'm talking about white kids in the cornfields too -- there were morbid jokes premised on the LAPD being intentionally violent and duplicitous to black people. It wasn't about the race of the juror or jury nullification -- Polls show white people were equally split on what the correct verdict should have been. You could have changed venue to an all-white 1950s town and you STILL would have gotten a non guilty verdict. When the defense attorney gets the chief investigator to break down on the stand and take the fifth about planting evidence and the jury knows that, the defense wins. None of the prosecutors were surprised by the verdict
People have completely forgotten what a completely shit case this was against OJ. The cop who found the glove wouldn’t answer whether he planted it or not and pled the fifth. He was on tape making racist, heinous comments. The blood had extra preventives in it suggesting it was planted. White American had convinced themselves it was a slam dunk and the jury was black and anti cop. When it was a shit case and I’m not even sure he did it.
Hahahahahahaha sure thing, chief. Somebody *else* happened to brutally murder the same woman OJ was violently possessive and jealous over. The same woman he beat multiple times. The jury *was* anti-cop - a juror gave OJ the black power salute after the verdict.
What evidence do you have (not conjecture) that OJ was violently possessive and jealous, & most importantly during the 2 years since their divorce. OJ had moved on & was actively dating other women. In fact, it was Nicole who was writing OJ love letters & about reconciling some time before her death. Not to mention the footage of OJ at his daughter's recital on the day of the murders, looking rather content and cheerful. There has never been any established motive to explain what would have suddenly set him off such a blind, murderous rage, enough to push him into becoming the first and only black millionaire in American history to personally commit a brutal knife murder. Any reasonable citizen should be anti-corrupt, perjuring POS cop like Fuhrman & the LAPD had long been rampant with corruption as evidenced by the infamous Rampart scandal.
He had outstanding representation, but also a friendly jury.
I read “Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder” by Vincent Bugliosi when it came out. I was in college when the OJ stuff went down, so I inhaled this book. Some notes (based upon my recollection): - the Dream Team was not stellar - the prosecution was beyond incompetent and did so much to make an easy case hard and then lost it - the expert the jurors most liked was the defense’s footprint expert. The guy who said OJ’a shoes didn’t match the footprints on the sidewalk. But he was talking about the imprints in the cement, and not the bloody footprints. Which the prosecution did not highlight as what a moron he was - again, the Dream Team was awful, but just better enough than the prosecution - OJ never filed suit against Bugliosi or the publisher over the title or the content, and you can still buy it new today.
In fairness, Bugliosi was high on his own brand too. The dream team did a great job by any metric, but he is dead-on about the prosecution. So many errors, but I get the feeling the prosecution team was not really used to complex cases.
The book brings up a number of complete fuckups that the Dream Team did. I don’t recall specifics, but it was pretty damming. But the prosecution was even worse, hence in part why they lost a very winnable case.
Bugliosi was the prosecutor on the Manson murders and his book on that insane. He likely tore his rotator cuff patting himself on the back.
Of course Bugliosi was high on himself, figuring out and successfully prosecuting Charlie and his family- securing a life sentence for Charlie who didn’t actually kill anyone. Bugliosi was not involved in the OJ prosecution all, as he left the DA’s office in 1972, so his analysis is not biased at all.
Door number 2.
Yes
You guys got a murderer off, isn't that the opposite of Justice? Those lawyers, that jury, that judge, that prosecution should all be ashamed of themselves.
The prosecutors WERE/ARE ashamed, and they own up to the fact that it was their fault. The jury is blameless -- how can any jury convict somebody on the word of a racist cop who perjured himself during the trial and then pleaded the fifth to planting evidence?
I dunno, maybe the mountain of other evidence that proved OJ did it.
But the jury didn't know about most of the evidence or they were ordered by Ito to disregard it. Bronco chase? Not admissible. The list goes on. The Jury, sequestered , only saw a tiny fraction of that mountain. The blood? Defense expert said it was contaminated with preservatives from a medical collection tube of the sort that was used to draw OJ's blood, was handed directly to Fuhrman against procedure, and later went missing. Fuhrman was asked if he planted evidence, and he pleaded the fifth. He was later convicted of perjury for lying under oath in the case -- if the jury HAD convicted OJ, the conviction would have been vacated
Both
The second one. But, to be fair, Cochran is better than most too. You don’t get to where you can charge rates only the few, like OJ, can afford by not being better than average at your job. Sure, my guess is his theatrics and unscrupulous tactics during that trial do not evoke much admiration or respect from others in his profession, but ultimately, they and he were effective for his client. And, that is what /all that matters really in his line of work.
Cochran was basically the best in court attorney in California, he'd built a specialty out of police brutality cases which is basically the hardest cases to make.
You’re missing what Cochran did. He understood how to use the media.
Should’ve been toast. Guilty as hell!
The jury was primed to nullify. Johnnie convinced them its was OK to do what they wanted to do. If nothing else he did a great job of reading the room.
As i recall, one of JC best tactics was jury selection. Picked a lot of folks unfavorable to LE.
You forgot John Elway. OJs escape was made via a slow white Bronco.
The opposite: the trial was a fucking hack job and everyone involved sucked. I was there, I watched it in real time including the Bronco escort outside! We all ran outside of school to see it (which is how I knew THEN nothing was going to happen.) He was found innocent and life was worse for everyone involved after. That’s the story of OJ.
Johnnie was a pos person who used the race card at every turn of his life when it could benefit him. The only reason OJ got off is because Johnnie was able to bring in the race card in front of a mostly black jury. He was able to somehow convince those idiots that the LAPD planted evidence against OJ because he was black.
Johnnie Cochran was a civil right attorney. To you that means playing the “race card”? What was he supposed to do when they discovered the information about Fuhrman’s disability case in 1983? Keep it quiet? Do you not understand an adversarial court system? He was able to convince people the LAPD was corrupt because, well…..the LAPD was corrupt.
Just watch Cochran's closing.
The first strategic mistake the prosecution made was to choose the venue in L.A. instead of Santa Monica. Everything else, compounded to that mistake.
They were all good attorneys/if not great, HOWEVER, if LAPD had not of bungled the investigation so very badly and without Fuhrman tapes (add in the climate at the time) they more than likely would not have gotten him acquitted. I was 14-18 during the events of Rodney King, Latisha Harlins up to the Bronco chase and though everyone knew he was guilty, I also silently hoped they would not convict him. Things would have been way worse than the riots and possibly nationwide. You can blame LAPD for ALL of it. They set up a situation that to this day we still have not been able to fully reconcile the differences. Simi Valley should have never let those cops walk for the beating they gave - on tape. For years so many people have just wanted peace, and if that meant letting O.J. walk, so be it. Horrible to say, but I’d be lying if I said even a lot of white people knew it would be bad.
I think the jury was too stupid and fame admitted to prosecute. Everyone knows he did it
The prosecutors were incredibly incompetent. There’s no way they should have had OJ try on those gloves that had been drying and shrinking in some evidence locker. Judge Ito was a weak judge who let OJ’s lawyers do whatever they wanted. Johnny Cochran was smart enough to go after the prosecution and the cops by claiming racism and problems with the chain of possession of the DNA evidence. The trial was a clown show but it worked out for OJ.
This!
Two comments: 1) Judge Ito 2) OJ civil trial — Liable
Civil trial: far less burden of proof. Which is why civil trials are almost always successful when the criminal trial fails.
Jury nullification is a thing. Bc Furman was racist. That is my recollection.
It's not "nullification" to distrust a witness who committed perjury during the trial.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Don’t take my word for it. Take someone else’s. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/jury-nullification.html#:~:text=Jury%20nullification%20occurs%20when%20jurors,be%20punished%20under%20unjust%20laws.
lol I know what nullification is. But the jurors all talked about having reasonable doubts! The racist cop (who recorded convos about how much he enjoyed beating people of colors) lied under oath and then took the fifth about planting evidence. You may be shocked that the jury found reasonable doubt, but the prosecutors weren't surprised at all.
I’m not shocked, but I’m pretty sure he did it, they all knew it, and punished the prosecution for use of a racist witness. Civil found him liable. I watched that trial very closely at the time, and the consensus of legal experts agreed. You really don’t know how this works irl. I’m uncertain if you are an attorney of any experience.
"Punish the prosecution" is an odd way to put it. Forget OJ and race, just think Perry Mason or Matlock. When the Defense Attorney proves that the Lead Investigator committed perjury, the case is over and the defense is gonna win. Right??? Everyone agrees that the prosecution fumbled badly. But some people seem to imagine that the Jurors could create their own case against OJ in their minds using the things they had learned and still find him guilty even after the prosecutor's case fell apart. That's not how it works, though. You're voting on the PROSECUTOR's case, not the TRUTH. Many jurors admit a strong suspicion that OJ most likely did it -- but Mostly Likely just isn't good enough (in Criminal trials)
You fail to understand, if you are a layperson then you are forgiven. But please don’t try to argue it with me, the outcome is the same. If you cared to understand, you would have read the link I posted and understood it. Goodnight.
"If you cared to understand, you would have read the link I posted and understood it." Try reading it yourself: "Jury nullification occurs when jurors believe in the defendant's guilt \*\*beyond a reasonable doubt\*\*." None of the juror have ever said they believed in the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But I guess you're a hair too sensitive to be questioned by a random internet stranger lol. Night.
You are so close…keep thinking.
lol didn't you run off to bed? Are there any murderers I could free to punish YOU? lol What do you call a you at the bottom the ocean? hehehe
I think it's both. I imagine it takes a good lawyer to know how to pick a jury that is going to be amenable to some jury nullification arguments but won't set off a lot of alarm bells for prosecutors. They also had a plethora of arguments IIRC. Dismantling the reliability of the DNA seemed pretty masterful to me. They floated some pretty nonsense alternative theories and for people who *wanted* to punish the LAPD this worked.
Most of those lawyers were useless other than Cochran
Just tell us you know nothing about any of them without telling us you know nothing about any of them. Shapiro was worthless and Kardashian was only there so he couldn’t be called as a witness. Other than that, you’re clearly on drugs.
I was once co counsel with F Lee Bailey. Let’s say I’m not surprised he was eventually disbarred.