O.J. Simpson

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

That seems so wrong to me. Couldn't an innocent fellow evade the law also because he doesn't want to go to jail for a crime he did not commit? Then again, the law is not equatable to what I or anyone thinks is right.

I am not a psychologist either but I would think the choice to run from the cops, fight the cops, or comply with an arrest has more to do with mental crisis (the case for OJ, who was suicidal and clearly not really with it during the unplanned escape attempt) or for a rational accused, a calculation of whether they think they will be convicted (whether or not they did it) and if they see that outcome as preferable to the odds they will get additional charges or be murdered if they don't comply.

I read Toobin's book a year or two ago on the trial so I remember a decent bit of it for now. It's one wild case even if OJ wasn't who he was. I'm hard pressed to think of another public case that was botched so badly by the state.

The courts only hold that it's admissible. The defense can still argue the weight. And in a specific case the judge might exclude it as unduly prejudicial. And yes, atrocious prosecution (perhaps distracted by their affair, I dunno) and awful star witness. Leaving jury nullification aside, they may not have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.