O.J. Simpson

[Peter_Spaeth]

Asking OJ to try on the gloves has to be one of the worst courtroom moves in history.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Asking OJ to try on the gloves has to be one of the worst courtroom moves in history.

Seriously, how did that seem like a good idea to the prosecution?

We all know he did it and some of the jurors have openly admitted they let him off for being black, but the prosecution did so bad that I don't see how a jury could actually vote to convict. If the detective who found the key blood evidence after it was missed several times is on the stand and is asked if he planted the key evidence and pleads the fifth, how can you convict? They created so much reasonable doubt that I'd probably have had to swallow the bile and say 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. His behavior after the case feels more incriminating than the actual heavily damaged evidence. The invented Charlie persona and 'hypothetical' interview and book really seals the deal.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

Seriously, how did that seem like a good idea to the prosecution?

We all know he did it and some of the jurors have openly admitted they let him off for being black, but the prosecution did so bad that I don't see how a jury could actually vote to convict. If the detective who found the key blood evidence after it was missed several times is on the stand and is asked if he planted the key evidence and pleads the fifth, how can you convict? They created so much reasonable doubt that I'd probably have had to swallow the bile and say 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. His behavior after the case feels more incriminating than the actual heavily damaged evidence. The invented Charlie persona and 'hypothetical' interview and book really seals the deal.

As it was unfolding, I was thinking the perfect surprise would've been the revelation that OJ had donated blood just a week before the murders. If OJ had planned the murders, that would've been a brilliant pre-emptive thing to do.

Then the defense could've raised reasonable doubt regarding all blood evidence by saying someone at the blood bank had recognized OJ, and stolen some of his blood for a frame-up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Seriously, how did that seem like a good idea to the prosecution?

We all know he did it and some of the jurors have openly admitted they let him off for being black, but the prosecution did so bad that I don't see how a jury could actually vote to convict. If the detective who found the key blood evidence after it was missed several times is on the stand and is asked if he planted the key evidence and pleads the fifth, how can you convict? They created so much reasonable doubt that I'd probably have had to swallow the bile and say 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. His behavior after the case feels more incriminating than the actual heavily damaged evidence. The invented Charlie persona and 'hypothetical' interview and book really seals the deal.

It was also interesting they chose not to put on evidence of the attempted flight and car chase. Or to call A.C. Cowlings.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was also interesting they chose not to put on evidence of the attempted flight and car chase. Or to call A.C. Cowlings.

I-am-not-a-lawyer but wouldn't the car chase only help if they had charged him for evading the law/running from the police or whatever the technical charge for not complying is, and not the murders themselves? Wanting to be free isn't proof one did the original crime.

Unpopular opinion probably, but you should be allowed to run from the cops. Ain't nothing more natural than a mans desire to be free, doesn't feel like a just crime in and of itself.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I-am-not-a-lawyer but wouldn't the car chase only help if they had charged him for evading the law/running from the police or whatever the technical charge for not complying is, and not the murders themselves? Wanting to be free isn't proof one did the original crime.

Unpopular opinion probably, but you should be allowed to run from the cops. Ain't nothing more natural than a mans desire to be free, doesn't feel like a just crime in and of itself.

I don't remember all the details now, but I think a good argument could have been made that his flight was suggestive of guilt.

The United States Supreme Court has long held that evidence of flight after committing a crime is relevant to establish a defendant's consciousness of guilt, even though not sufficient in and of itself to sustain a conviction. See, e.g., Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 499, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896); Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499, 510-11, 16 S.Ct. 864, 40 L.Ed. 1051 (1896); Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't remember all the details now, but I think a good argument could have been made that his flight was suggestive of guilt.

The United States Supreme Court has long held that evidence of flight after committing a crime is relevant to establish a defendant's consciousness of guilt, even though not sufficient in and of itself to sustain a conviction. See, e.g., Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 499, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896); Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499, 510-11, 16 S.Ct. 864, 40 L.Ed. 1051 (1896); Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000).

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.

[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.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't remember all the details now, but I think a good argument could have been made that his flight was suggestive of guilt.

The United States Supreme Court has long held that evidence of flight after committing a crime is relevant to establish a defendant's consciousness of guilt, even though not sufficient in and of itself to sustain a conviction. See, e.g., Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 499, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896); Alberty v. United States, 162 U.S. 499, 510-11, 16 S.Ct. 864, 40 L.Ed. 1051 (1896); Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000).

I don't think we will find any other post in the history of online sports forums where there is even one, much less three, perfectly composed Supreme Court case citations. (And two of them are from the 19th century!)

[Seven]

Deplorable person. One of the greatest rushing seasons ever, in all of NFL history. Though it's hard to separate the player from the man, when he was an "alleged" murderer.

Not sure how true this story is but I do remember something along the lines of OJ being considered for the role of the Terminator but James Cameron thought OJ was too nice of a person to ever kill someone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

I don't think we will find any other post in the history of online sports forums where there is even one, much less three, perfectly composed Supreme Court case citations. (And two of them are from the 19th century!)

Well, in fairness I cut and paste this from another case.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by G1911

you should be allowed to run from the cops. Ain't nothing more natural than a mans desire to be free, doesn't feel like a just crime in and of itself.

Chris Rock: "If you see police lights in your mirror, stop immediately. Everybody knows, if the police have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass-kicking with them."

[packs]

At least there were some tangible consequences for OJ. He was effectively shunned and remained a disgraced figure for the rest of his life. But there are plenty of celebrities who have been involved or were potentially involved in some pretty heinous things that have not faced any consequences whatsoever, even on the smallest scale like being excommunicated.

What happened the night Natalie Wood died, for example?