I don't want to get into the details of the original trial here. I am merely using this famous example as to how I think objectivity and our system should work.
One of his "dream team" was on CBS This Morning claiming that the robbery jury was influenced by the implication of the original murder trial. I thought that was a bullshit claim. Now, do not get me wrong, I do think OJ murdered Nicole and Ron, but again, that is not the point of this opinion. "Not guilty" does not always mean that the jury who comes up with that is saying that. In legal terms it merely means the state did not prove it's case. In that context, regardless of my personal opinion the jury came to the conclusion it thought was best.
I am quite sure the judge in his robbery case, was clear on his instructions about not allowing the bias of his murder trial to creep in to the robbery case. And I am also sure that his defense lawyer vetted the jury with vigor to the best of his ability. The truth of the robbery trial is that the evidence was ON TAPE on VIDEO and did not have the baggage of the prior murder trial. There were no cops being accused of trampling all over the evidence, no accusations of racist cops like Mark Ferman(sp).
I fear the following replies are going to address this individual case, please try to limit it to the context of the long term society and the system all of us would want to live under long term.
The point of this is to say, no matter the person charged or the nature of the charge, or the fame and wealth or obscurity of a no name, a court is there and a jury is there to fact find, not to assume guilt or get revenge. In OJ's case you have two completely different trials which had far different factors that lead to two different conclusions. I think the right decision was made in the murder trial, precisely because of the sloppy investigation, not because I believe OJ is a squeaky clean saint. But the second trial had far more solid unquestionable evidence and again, I also agreed with that verdict.
This affects everyone. If you want the guilty to get convicted, then the protocol in the investigation has to have redundancy so that there can be no holes in the case and no chance at appeals. As much as I think he did it, there is still a reason you don't reward sloppy investigations. Not for him, but more so for those without the means to hire fleets of lawyers. Innocent people do end up in prison. Many accused because of the lack of funding for defense lawyers for those who cannot afford it, will often plea rather than risk a longer sentence even if innocent.
The protocol in the murder trial was sloppy. The protocol in the robbery case did not have the same baggage. If we as a society want to insure that the innocent do not get wrongfully convicted, then funding for proper evidence handling, and more funding for defense lawyers has to be what we should strive for. Not for OJ, but for long term society to have decent quality control to insure only the right people get convicted.
One of his "dream team" was on CBS This Morning claiming that the robbery jury was influenced by the implication of the original murder trial. I thought that was a bullshit claim. Now, do not get me wrong, I do think OJ murdered Nicole and Ron, but again, that is not the point of this opinion. "Not guilty" does not always mean that the jury who comes up with that is saying that. In legal terms it merely means the state did not prove it's case. In that context, regardless of my personal opinion the jury came to the conclusion it thought was best.
I am quite sure the judge in his robbery case, was clear on his instructions about not allowing the bias of his murder trial to creep in to the robbery case. And I am also sure that his defense lawyer vetted the jury with vigor to the best of his ability. The truth of the robbery trial is that the evidence was ON TAPE on VIDEO and did not have the baggage of the prior murder trial. There were no cops being accused of trampling all over the evidence, no accusations of racist cops like Mark Ferman(sp).
I fear the following replies are going to address this individual case, please try to limit it to the context of the long term society and the system all of us would want to live under long term.
The point of this is to say, no matter the person charged or the nature of the charge, or the fame and wealth or obscurity of a no name, a court is there and a jury is there to fact find, not to assume guilt or get revenge. In OJ's case you have two completely different trials which had far different factors that lead to two different conclusions. I think the right decision was made in the murder trial, precisely because of the sloppy investigation, not because I believe OJ is a squeaky clean saint. But the second trial had far more solid unquestionable evidence and again, I also agreed with that verdict.
This affects everyone. If you want the guilty to get convicted, then the protocol in the investigation has to have redundancy so that there can be no holes in the case and no chance at appeals. As much as I think he did it, there is still a reason you don't reward sloppy investigations. Not for him, but more so for those without the means to hire fleets of lawyers. Innocent people do end up in prison. Many accused because of the lack of funding for defense lawyers for those who cannot afford it, will often plea rather than risk a longer sentence even if innocent.
The protocol in the murder trial was sloppy. The protocol in the robbery case did not have the same baggage. If we as a society want to insure that the innocent do not get wrongfully convicted, then funding for proper evidence handling, and more funding for defense lawyers has to be what we should strive for. Not for OJ, but for long term society to have decent quality control to insure only the right people get convicted.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)
