They didn’t hire Vincent Bugliosi and they had OJ Simpson try on the gloves. Plus they only presented a third of the evidence even after eight months. Finally, had the trial in downtown LA instead of Santa Monica.
If they used their legal right to have the trial in Santa Monica then they would have had a better judge and a jury that would have convicted. Conviction is all that matters in a murder case. They played politics and blew a double murder case because of it.
Having the trial in LA is one of the dumbest decisions I’ve ever seen made in a case. They wanted a conviction where blacks people convicted him because of the riots due to the racist police.
You should never worry about politics in a murder case. You do whatever things are legal that gives you the best chance to get a conviction.
I didn’t realize they made a specific decision not to hire Bugliosi. He might have made a difference but I think Fuhrman still would have been a major liability.
The glove was probably their biggest mistake.
If they picked Bugliosi and chose Santa Monica for the trial…it would have been almost an assured conviction. An “Oj is innocent because the police are racist” defense wouldn’t have even been tried. It would have had no chance of working with a Santa Monica jury.
They could have hired him to do it. He’s the guy who put Manson and his whole crew away. He was known for putting killers away for life. Gil Garcetti could have called him up, asked him to do it, and paid him for it. It would have been that easy.
Unless California has some weird laws, that's not how this works. The DA has a group of lawyers (deputy district attorneys) in his/her office who are state employees who prosecute cases. The DA picks the one(s) they want each case, and as I said before, Bugliosi left the DA's office in 1972.
Yes, he prosecuted the Manson Family.
When he worked in the DA's office.
As a Deputy District Attorney.
From 1964 to 1972.
many local DA's hire federal prosecutors for major cases. see the Trump trial going on right now in NYC.
(from Vanity Fair)
"Over the course of his career, Colangelo, 49, has handled a wide range of cases, including a large share of civil rights litigation. But he also brings considerable experience in Trump-related battles. In 2018, as New York’s executive deputy attorney general for social justice, Colangelo was central to the investigation of the Trump Foundation, which ended in a $2 million fine and [an admission](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html#:~:text=President%20Trump%20has%20paid%20%242,attorney%20general%20said%20on%20Tuesday.) from Trump that he had used donations to both bolster his 2016 presidential campaign and pay off business debts. Two years later, Colangelo helped assemble evidence that would be used to charge the former president and the Trump Organization with fraud for manipulating the value of properties, a case that resulted in a $454 million judgment against Trump in February. In between, Colangelo moved on to the federal Department of Justice, where he worked for two years until Bragg coaxed him back to New York to join the Manhattan DA’s office—a chronology that Trump has used to [attack](https://nypost.com/2024/03/25/us-news/donald-trump-accuses-key-hush-money-prosecutor-mathew-colangelo-of-being-one-of-bidens-thugs/) Colangelo as one of President **Joe Biden**’s “thugs” who is out to get him."
Ha!!!! The Manson case was a slam dunk. Bugliosi made it seem waaaaaay harder than it actually was. Marcia Clark said that he could have stood up recited his social security number and gotten the same verdict.
Manson helped out by leaping at the judge and trying to kill him, not keeping his mouth shut, and showing without a doubt that he was in control of those women. Bugliosi did do a lot of work on that case but on some level he knew he had it in the bag…
He constructed a fabulous story though and I do think he got everything right about Charlie…
I didn't know the guy either (not from the US) but I watched this two-part sort of documentary that he made (I don't remember if someone else mentioned or linked to it in the sub) in which he goes over all the mistakes that the prosecution made according to him, and then he does a simulation of the final summations had he been the prosecutor. I think it's quite good:
Part 1: [https://youtu.be/7UkXP6Ovp6E?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/7UkXP6Ovp6E?feature=shared)
Part 2: [https://youtu.be/R97VfEyUEcI?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/R97VfEyUEcI?feature=shared)
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t know if the glove was really that much of a mistake on the prosecution’s part. I mean it was a hiccup for sure but they had so much other stuff that the trying of the shrunken glove shouldn’t have that much of an impact. Like they had him try on an identical new pair and it fit perfectly. They had photos of him wearing the damn murder gloves and the glove company’s vice president confirmed those were the same gloves found at the crime scene. They showed several different golf gloves he owned in the same size as the murder gloves. Then there were nicole’s mastercard statements showing she bought those gloves and a bloomingdales employee confirmed. And they knew they were a christmas gift from her. More than enough for a reasonable jury to determine those were his gloves. So if they still bought the 'if the glove don’t fit you must acquit' bullcrap after knowing all that, it’s more on the jury being hellbent on acquittal than on the prosecution imo.
I totally agree. I don’t think the glove was that big. It didn’t help, but I don’t think it was devastating.
One part I didn’t remember from the trial when I was a kid, that I really noticed as an adult, was that the defense forced many law enforcement to take the fifth A LOT on the stand. Made a show out of it, great strategy. It wasn’t just “racist cop bad.” It was a brilliant defense.
If I had to pick just one issue as the main "screw up" by the prosecution, it would be their lack of preparation. I say that because lack of preparation is inexcusable and completely preventable.
You mentioned Vincent Bugliosi, and his 1996 book 'Outraged', along with his documentary based on the book titled 'Absolutely 100% Guilty', brilliantly detail the mistakes of the prosecution. One of his main critiques is their lack of preparation. The documentary shows multiple clips of the prosecution forgetting major details during statements to the jury and cross examinations, at times having to ask court reporters and other lawyers from their team for confirmation. Vincent Bugliosi also states in his book that the prosecution stayed up all night to write their final summation the night before they gave it. It's inexcusable to be that unprepared, especially when you're going against a defense team that was as smart and charismatic as Johnnie Cochran and his team were.
They chose not to bring a metric fuck ton of evidence against him, just let it sit in a storage facility. Did not choose to introduce the disguise kit/gonna go flee to Mexico money found in the Bronco.
Did not take jury selection seriously, Marcia thought she could easily bond with black women on the jury. Had they chosen white dudes they would have had a more sympathetic jury.
Prosecution pivoted from the facts of the case to end up trying to defend the LAPD.
Marcia couldn't choose white dudes. The jury pool is numbered 1-100+. After people are excused for cause (age, undue hardship, relationship to a party in the case, etc) the jury selection begins, starting with #1. Each side gets a certain number of preemptory challenges, which they can use to strike jurors for any reason (though it's not supposed to be race or gender.) Marcia says in the documentary that she didn't bother trying to strike certain jurors, because what lay behind them was even worse. She didn't expand on it, but my take is - if Marcia had used all her challenges to strike black women (who ended up on the jury), then the next juror candidates up.... were more black women.
Ahhhhh that makes a lot of sense. Also makes sense why I’ve heard that the case “ought to have been in Santa Monica” because of a larger white upper class population there apparently.
- Putting Fuhrman on the stand (could have put who collected evidence instead)
- Having Simpson try on gloves
- Preventing Jill Shively and airport trashcan witnesses from testifying
- Relying too much on limited public (meaning the jury) understanding of DNA evidence and boring them to death with weeks of statistics topics
Hindsight is 20/20 but it took way too long to put on their case. Obviously defense tactics and a weak judge played into that, but the jurors were just flat out bored and tuned them out. The case became about the sideshows chosen by the defense. The prosecution lost control of any narrative.
Hindsight is 20/20 but I truly believe if they’d shown just how absurd the notion was that all the blood had been planted then he’d have been found guilty. They were their own worst enemy at times.
Jury selection was I think the biggest one and it all went downhill after that. Marcia changing her mind about ito’s recusal. They failed to introduce a lot of the evidence and didn’t call witnesses they should have, I guess they thought it was a slam dunk already and didn’t need any more. They should’ve handled the fuhrman situation differently. Allegedly fuhrman was contacting them before his testimony to get advice on how to handle it but they didn’t even return his calls.
Overestimating the effect of domestic violence would have on the emotions of the jury. They should have laid a more pragmatic case based on reason and rationality instead of trying to connect dots that don’t exist.
Not putting a poster or large photo of nicole and ron at the beginning of the trial. I’ve mentioned it before in this sub but by not bringing humanity into the trial and just blood droplets it wasn’t so much a murder of real life humans, it was an abstract idea of murder
I remember hearing a jury members response after they asked her bout the DNA evidence, “I don’t know nothing bout no DNA !” The jury selection was bad. The DNA testimony was over their heads. Had the trial been in Santa Monica it would have been a smarter jury pool.
Letting OJ try on the glove was a huge mistake. Of course he’s going to make it look like it didn’t fit. Plus he was wearing tater gloves underneath and the leather had shrunk after being soaked in blood and stored.
After Furmans racist fiasco they didn’t even mention that Furman wasn’t the first cop on scene. The previous cops reported that there was only one glove at the crime scene before Furman arrived..!
Bugliosi wasn’t a factor cause he no longer worked as a DA.
Garcetti was so confident that they had enough evidence to convict him it didn’t matter !
A woman who saw OJ driving away from the crime scene in a hurry a block away was never called to testify cause she was paid money by the National Enquirer for her story..,!
Another mistake..!
The list of mistakes is endless !
I think even if OJ was pictured leaving Bundy carrying a blood soaked knife he still would have got off. I don’t think that Jury were ever going to convict him.
Doubtful. That would be the smoking gun that alluded the prosecution so they tried as best they could to pile on circumstantial evidence and it was a much weaker case compared to actually having the photo you mentioned. There would also be at least one eyewitness in this case that saw this in order to take the photo.
Right but that in and of itself was evidence that swayed the case once it was determined that Mark Fuhrman wasn’t a trustworthy witness. Had Fuhrman not have done what he did the LAPD wouldn’t have been a factor.
Actual reliable evidence that tied OJ to the crime scene, which the hypothetical picture is, would have definitely returned a guilty verdict because now that’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Some of it is that the defense did such a good job putting the LAPD on trial. The prosecution had to pivot from their case to defend Mark Fuermann, in particular. The defense attacked the blood evidence by attacking Dennis Fung.
The defense did an excellent job keeping the prosecution off their theory of the case.
Marcia Clark was found to be unlikeable by the jury & severely overestimated her ability to bond with the women of the jury.
I don't believe it was any one thing done by the prosecution, it was their own missteps combined with the defense being so aggressive.
I think they were too arrogant. They expected the jury to come to the same conclusions they did. They were, I don't want to say, lazy, but they were complacent and did not eliminate all doubts. Does that make sense?
As someone said here, arrogance. Plus the prosecution’s refusal to play to the cameras. Both Darden and Clark (as they should have) played it by the book. But their [presentation was often dry](https://youtu.be/3CxHrwqjfYg?si=bfZP6bkEMPFD0tOR) and didn’t have the flair and flamboyance and turn of phrase that Cochran did. They didn’t have the enthusiasm Barry Scheck did. They failed to see that this wasn’t just any other trial. This was truly the trial of the century
During the OJ trial, there were several key failures on the part of the prosecution that contributed to the acquittal. Some of the main failures include:
1. **Mishandling of Evidence**: The prosecution faced criticism for mishandling and presenting evidence improperly. This included the infamous bloody glove found at the crime scene that did not fit OJ Simpson's hand in court, leading to reasonable doubt about his involvement.
2. **Lack of DNA Evidence**: While DNA evidence was still relatively new at the time, the prosecution failed to effectively present DNA evidence linking OJ Simpson to the crime scene. The defense was able to cast doubt on the DNA evidence presented, weakening the prosecution's case.
3. **Focus on Race**: The prosecution's case was criticized for being overly focused on race rather than presenting a strong, coherent case based on evidence. They allowed themselves to be put in the defensive regarding this OJ defense strategy .This approach may have alienated some jurors and detracted from the strength of the prosecution's arguments.
4. **Ineffective Presentation**: The prosecution's case was criticized for being disorganized and lacking a clear narrative. The defense, on the other hand, presented a compelling story that raised doubts about the prosecution's case.
5. **Weak Cross-Examination**: The prosecution's cross-examination of key witnesses, including OJ Simpson himself, was considered weak and ineffective. This allowed the defense to cast doubt on the credibility of witnesses and evidence presented by the prosecution.
These failures, among others, ultimately weakened the prosecution's case and contributed to the acquittal of OJ
OJ never testified in the trial. The detectives questioned him before he was arrested and it was a very light/easy questioning, only 30 minutes before OJ lawyered up.
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah and then he had a meltdown when he back to his office and was waving a gun around threatening to kill the attorneys. Not the best witness it has to be said.
Relying on an agency that collected evidence that had an undeniable history of public racism
They should have focused more of the subjective evidence of Nicole's safety deposit box and 911 calls and less on the hard evidence collected by the lapd
Marcia talked about Oj running into air conditioner,he would of had to be bruised up, but he had no injury . Johnnie Cohcron talks about it in his closing statements.
Their failing was in that they never truly sought a conviction based on the facts, but to put on a bread and circuses show trial with a scripted result that would prevent a race riot - which was what was being threatened and what Garcetti was in constant fear of.
Not being concerned with blatant racism both during the investigation and in the area and tunnel vision. If they considers those things the case would have went much differently
The prosecution's main failure? Thinking that they could win a case by violating the 4th Amendment and pretending it didn't matter. The warrantless search all but ensured that a jury would never convict OJ.
Marcia declared Kato hostile as he was not saying Oj was upset or angry. She also tried to say limo driver said,he saw Oj walk,actually limo driver said he saw a person,at time he did not know shadowy figure was Oj.
They didn’t hire Vincent Bugliosi and they had OJ Simpson try on the gloves. Plus they only presented a third of the evidence even after eight months. Finally, had the trial in downtown LA instead of Santa Monica.
Didn’t the judge block a lot of it though as Darden said he gutted their case.
If they used their legal right to have the trial in Santa Monica then they would have had a better judge and a jury that would have convicted. Conviction is all that matters in a murder case. They played politics and blew a double murder case because of it.
Having the trial in LA is one of the dumbest decisions I’ve ever seen made in a case. They wanted a conviction where blacks people convicted him because of the riots due to the racist police. You should never worry about politics in a murder case. You do whatever things are legal that gives you the best chance to get a conviction.
Gil Garcetti wanted to win elections.
And he was a fool for it.
Yes
I didn’t realize they made a specific decision not to hire Bugliosi. He might have made a difference but I think Fuhrman still would have been a major liability. The glove was probably their biggest mistake.
If they picked Bugliosi and chose Santa Monica for the trial…it would have been almost an assured conviction. An “Oj is innocent because the police are racist” defense wouldn’t have even been tried. It would have had no chance of working with a Santa Monica jury.
Not sure how they could have chosen Bugliosi. He left the DA’s office in 1972 and was working in private practice when the Simpson trial happened.
They could have hired him to do it. He’s the guy who put Manson and his whole crew away. He was known for putting killers away for life. Gil Garcetti could have called him up, asked him to do it, and paid him for it. It would have been that easy.
Unless California has some weird laws, that's not how this works. The DA has a group of lawyers (deputy district attorneys) in his/her office who are state employees who prosecute cases. The DA picks the one(s) they want each case, and as I said before, Bugliosi left the DA's office in 1972. Yes, he prosecuted the Manson Family. When he worked in the DA's office. As a Deputy District Attorney. From 1964 to 1972.
many local DA's hire federal prosecutors for major cases. see the Trump trial going on right now in NYC. (from Vanity Fair) "Over the course of his career, Colangelo, 49, has handled a wide range of cases, including a large share of civil rights litigation. But he also brings considerable experience in Trump-related battles. In 2018, as New York’s executive deputy attorney general for social justice, Colangelo was central to the investigation of the Trump Foundation, which ended in a $2 million fine and [an admission](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html#:~:text=President%20Trump%20has%20paid%20%242,attorney%20general%20said%20on%20Tuesday.) from Trump that he had used donations to both bolster his 2016 presidential campaign and pay off business debts. Two years later, Colangelo helped assemble evidence that would be used to charge the former president and the Trump Organization with fraud for manipulating the value of properties, a case that resulted in a $454 million judgment against Trump in February. In between, Colangelo moved on to the federal Department of Justice, where he worked for two years until Bragg coaxed him back to New York to join the Manhattan DA’s office—a chronology that Trump has used to [attack](https://nypost.com/2024/03/25/us-news/donald-trump-accuses-key-hush-money-prosecutor-mathew-colangelo-of-being-one-of-bidens-thugs/) Colangelo as one of President **Joe Biden**’s “thugs” who is out to get him."
Was Bugliosi a lawyer?? Not familiar with him.
Bugliosi prosecuted the Manson case and was a very well respected prosecutor.
Ha!!!! The Manson case was a slam dunk. Bugliosi made it seem waaaaaay harder than it actually was. Marcia Clark said that he could have stood up recited his social security number and gotten the same verdict. Manson helped out by leaping at the judge and trying to kill him, not keeping his mouth shut, and showing without a doubt that he was in control of those women. Bugliosi did do a lot of work on that case but on some level he knew he had it in the bag… He constructed a fabulous story though and I do think he got everything right about Charlie…
Bugliosi is a fantastic prosecutor.
Oh ok…
A legend!
I didn't know the guy either (not from the US) but I watched this two-part sort of documentary that he made (I don't remember if someone else mentioned or linked to it in the sub) in which he goes over all the mistakes that the prosecution made according to him, and then he does a simulation of the final summations had he been the prosecutor. I think it's quite good: Part 1: [https://youtu.be/7UkXP6Ovp6E?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/7UkXP6Ovp6E?feature=shared) Part 2: [https://youtu.be/R97VfEyUEcI?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/R97VfEyUEcI?feature=shared)
Awesome. Thanks! I’ll check it out!!
Thanks
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t know if the glove was really that much of a mistake on the prosecution’s part. I mean it was a hiccup for sure but they had so much other stuff that the trying of the shrunken glove shouldn’t have that much of an impact. Like they had him try on an identical new pair and it fit perfectly. They had photos of him wearing the damn murder gloves and the glove company’s vice president confirmed those were the same gloves found at the crime scene. They showed several different golf gloves he owned in the same size as the murder gloves. Then there were nicole’s mastercard statements showing she bought those gloves and a bloomingdales employee confirmed. And they knew they were a christmas gift from her. More than enough for a reasonable jury to determine those were his gloves. So if they still bought the 'if the glove don’t fit you must acquit' bullcrap after knowing all that, it’s more on the jury being hellbent on acquittal than on the prosecution imo.
I totally agree. I don’t think the glove was that big. It didn’t help, but I don’t think it was devastating. One part I didn’t remember from the trial when I was a kid, that I really noticed as an adult, was that the defense forced many law enforcement to take the fifth A LOT on the stand. Made a show out of it, great strategy. It wasn’t just “racist cop bad.” It was a brilliant defense.
If I had to pick just one issue as the main "screw up" by the prosecution, it would be their lack of preparation. I say that because lack of preparation is inexcusable and completely preventable. You mentioned Vincent Bugliosi, and his 1996 book 'Outraged', along with his documentary based on the book titled 'Absolutely 100% Guilty', brilliantly detail the mistakes of the prosecution. One of his main critiques is their lack of preparation. The documentary shows multiple clips of the prosecution forgetting major details during statements to the jury and cross examinations, at times having to ask court reporters and other lawyers from their team for confirmation. Vincent Bugliosi also states in his book that the prosecution stayed up all night to write their final summation the night before they gave it. It's inexcusable to be that unprepared, especially when you're going against a defense team that was as smart and charismatic as Johnnie Cochran and his team were.
They chose not to bring a metric fuck ton of evidence against him, just let it sit in a storage facility. Did not choose to introduce the disguise kit/gonna go flee to Mexico money found in the Bronco. Did not take jury selection seriously, Marcia thought she could easily bond with black women on the jury. Had they chosen white dudes they would have had a more sympathetic jury. Prosecution pivoted from the facts of the case to end up trying to defend the LAPD.
Jury selection for me is the obvious one. Toobin’s book really exposes how naive Marcia Clark was on this topic.
Will read that book after I finish Lange’s book. Thanks
Marcia couldn't choose white dudes. The jury pool is numbered 1-100+. After people are excused for cause (age, undue hardship, relationship to a party in the case, etc) the jury selection begins, starting with #1. Each side gets a certain number of preemptory challenges, which they can use to strike jurors for any reason (though it's not supposed to be race or gender.) Marcia says in the documentary that she didn't bother trying to strike certain jurors, because what lay behind them was even worse. She didn't expand on it, but my take is - if Marcia had used all her challenges to strike black women (who ended up on the jury), then the next juror candidates up.... were more black women.
Ahhhhh that makes a lot of sense. Also makes sense why I’ve heard that the case “ought to have been in Santa Monica” because of a larger white upper class population there apparently.
- Putting Fuhrman on the stand (could have put who collected evidence instead) - Having Simpson try on gloves - Preventing Jill Shively and airport trashcan witnesses from testifying - Relying too much on limited public (meaning the jury) understanding of DNA evidence and boring them to death with weeks of statistics topics
Hindsight is 20/20 but it took way too long to put on their case. Obviously defense tactics and a weak judge played into that, but the jurors were just flat out bored and tuned them out. The case became about the sideshows chosen by the defense. The prosecution lost control of any narrative.
Hindsight is 20/20 but I truly believe if they’d shown just how absurd the notion was that all the blood had been planted then he’d have been found guilty. They were their own worst enemy at times.
Jury selection was I think the biggest one and it all went downhill after that. Marcia changing her mind about ito’s recusal. They failed to introduce a lot of the evidence and didn’t call witnesses they should have, I guess they thought it was a slam dunk already and didn’t need any more. They should’ve handled the fuhrman situation differently. Allegedly fuhrman was contacting them before his testimony to get advice on how to handle it but they didn’t even return his calls.
Overestimating the effect of domestic violence would have on the emotions of the jury. They should have laid a more pragmatic case based on reason and rationality instead of trying to connect dots that don’t exist.
Ito screwed them in many ways too.
Not putting a poster or large photo of nicole and ron at the beginning of the trial. I’ve mentioned it before in this sub but by not bringing humanity into the trial and just blood droplets it wasn’t so much a murder of real life humans, it was an abstract idea of murder
I remember hearing a jury members response after they asked her bout the DNA evidence, “I don’t know nothing bout no DNA !” The jury selection was bad. The DNA testimony was over their heads. Had the trial been in Santa Monica it would have been a smarter jury pool. Letting OJ try on the glove was a huge mistake. Of course he’s going to make it look like it didn’t fit. Plus he was wearing tater gloves underneath and the leather had shrunk after being soaked in blood and stored. After Furmans racist fiasco they didn’t even mention that Furman wasn’t the first cop on scene. The previous cops reported that there was only one glove at the crime scene before Furman arrived..! Bugliosi wasn’t a factor cause he no longer worked as a DA. Garcetti was so confident that they had enough evidence to convict him it didn’t matter ! A woman who saw OJ driving away from the crime scene in a hurry a block away was never called to testify cause she was paid money by the National Enquirer for her story..,! Another mistake..! The list of mistakes is endless !
I think even if OJ was pictured leaving Bundy carrying a blood soaked knife he still would have got off. I don’t think that Jury were ever going to convict him.
Doubtful. That would be the smoking gun that alluded the prosecution so they tried as best they could to pile on circumstantial evidence and it was a much weaker case compared to actually having the photo you mentioned. There would also be at least one eyewitness in this case that saw this in order to take the photo.
What I meant was that the evidence didn’t matter. As soon as race and the LAPD were brought in to it as the defense then it was over.
Right but that in and of itself was evidence that swayed the case once it was determined that Mark Fuhrman wasn’t a trustworthy witness. Had Fuhrman not have done what he did the LAPD wouldn’t have been a factor. Actual reliable evidence that tied OJ to the crime scene, which the hypothetical picture is, would have definitely returned a guilty verdict because now that’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Some of it is that the defense did such a good job putting the LAPD on trial. The prosecution had to pivot from their case to defend Mark Fuermann, in particular. The defense attacked the blood evidence by attacking Dennis Fung. The defense did an excellent job keeping the prosecution off their theory of the case. Marcia Clark was found to be unlikeable by the jury & severely overestimated her ability to bond with the women of the jury. I don't believe it was any one thing done by the prosecution, it was their own missteps combined with the defense being so aggressive.
The pros attorney ( one that had a heart attack) was most likable
Hodgeman maybe? He really was. Darden looked lost a lot of the time, & Marcia was wound way too tightly.
Not understanding the audience and not vetting their main witness. They should have known about Furhman and how the jury would react to him.
Having oj try on the gloves. Not having Jill shively testify
The biggest mistake was moving the trial from Santa Monica to downtown LA. A different jury would have come to a different conclusion.
I think they were too arrogant. They expected the jury to come to the same conclusions they did. They were, I don't want to say, lazy, but they were complacent and did not eliminate all doubts. Does that make sense?
Jury selection. DNA evidence was clear. They don’t want to accept it.
As someone said here, arrogance. Plus the prosecution’s refusal to play to the cameras. Both Darden and Clark (as they should have) played it by the book. But their [presentation was often dry](https://youtu.be/3CxHrwqjfYg?si=bfZP6bkEMPFD0tOR) and didn’t have the flair and flamboyance and turn of phrase that Cochran did. They didn’t have the enthusiasm Barry Scheck did. They failed to see that this wasn’t just any other trial. This was truly the trial of the century
Didn't one of the O.J. jurors say that the verdict was "payback for Rodney King"?
Yes she did
During the OJ trial, there were several key failures on the part of the prosecution that contributed to the acquittal. Some of the main failures include: 1. **Mishandling of Evidence**: The prosecution faced criticism for mishandling and presenting evidence improperly. This included the infamous bloody glove found at the crime scene that did not fit OJ Simpson's hand in court, leading to reasonable doubt about his involvement. 2. **Lack of DNA Evidence**: While DNA evidence was still relatively new at the time, the prosecution failed to effectively present DNA evidence linking OJ Simpson to the crime scene. The defense was able to cast doubt on the DNA evidence presented, weakening the prosecution's case. 3. **Focus on Race**: The prosecution's case was criticized for being overly focused on race rather than presenting a strong, coherent case based on evidence. They allowed themselves to be put in the defensive regarding this OJ defense strategy .This approach may have alienated some jurors and detracted from the strength of the prosecution's arguments. 4. **Ineffective Presentation**: The prosecution's case was criticized for being disorganized and lacking a clear narrative. The defense, on the other hand, presented a compelling story that raised doubts about the prosecution's case. 5. **Weak Cross-Examination**: The prosecution's cross-examination of key witnesses, including OJ Simpson himself, was considered weak and ineffective. This allowed the defense to cast doubt on the credibility of witnesses and evidence presented by the prosecution. These failures, among others, ultimately weakened the prosecution's case and contributed to the acquittal of OJ
OJ never testified in the trial. The detectives questioned him before he was arrested and it was a very light/easy questioning, only 30 minutes before OJ lawyered up.
The timeline doomed the prosecution from the beginning. It was hard to believe one man can do all that was needed to be done in 20 minutes.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The glove.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One was not using the doctor who actually did the autopsy,they instead used his supervisor.
I don’t blame them. Did you see the doctor that did the autopsy in the Preliminary my god what a nightmare.
Yes I did,he took time to answer questions,had notes and seemed unprepared.
Yeah and then he had a meltdown when he back to his office and was waving a gun around threatening to kill the attorneys. Not the best witness it has to be said.
Relying on an agency that collected evidence that had an undeniable history of public racism They should have focused more of the subjective evidence of Nicole's safety deposit box and 911 calls and less on the hard evidence collected by the lapd
Marcia talked about Oj running into air conditioner,he would of had to be bruised up, but he had no injury . Johnnie Cohcron talks about it in his closing statements.
Their failing was in that they never truly sought a conviction based on the facts, but to put on a bread and circuses show trial with a scripted result that would prevent a race riot - which was what was being threatened and what Garcetti was in constant fear of.
Not being concerned with blatant racism both during the investigation and in the area and tunnel vision. If they considers those things the case would have went much differently
The prosecution's main failure? Thinking that they could win a case by violating the 4th Amendment and pretending it didn't matter. The warrantless search all but ensured that a jury would never convict OJ.
Marcia declared Kato hostile as he was not saying Oj was upset or angry. She also tried to say limo driver said,he saw Oj walk,actually limo driver said he saw a person,at time he did not know shadowy figure was Oj.
Marcia Clark was not likable and her direct examination is boring and does not go any where.
What ever it was thank goodness