If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit

Introduction

How do you know?

Because you believe it was against the weight of the evidence? Is it the verdict that tells you the skill of the lawyer? And why do we need to use some pathological situation like the Simpson trial to teach us the banal cliche that is the apparent conclusion?

The Evidence

Why is that a "fatal error"? Because they lost this particular case, or for some other reason? You are still trying to argue from the exceptional to the normal, and it still won't work.

Not quite. Either you want to be accurate about what Holmes said, which will require a little less intellectual blunt force, or you want to drop the comment altogether, which seems wiser to me.

You reach these conclusions on the basis of a single aberrant fifteen-year-old trial conducted under bizarre conditions, including fundamental failures by the trial judge? They're either truisms that need no argument, or serious propositions that require something better than the soap opera that is Simpson to justify them.

The Race Factor

You should have removed the grammatical ambiguity and the fuzzy thought here, but all you did was to replace "you" with "one." You haven't dealt at all with the ambiguity of your verb, "to get." So it's still unclear: are you stating here how Cochran "got" the verdict, in the sense of created the conditions for it? Are you asking how the DA's team "got" the verdict, in the sense of failing to prevent it? Or how "we" "got" the verdict, in the sense of having this happen in our society while "we" watched Lance Ito perform a classic example of the judge as clownish idiot? (You still don't mention the role of the judge, which is surprising.)

You're still not editing your writing carefully. "Capitalized" is an ugly and transitive verb. You meant "capitalized on," or better, "exploited."

That seems more like an interpretation than an argument, unless it was an insight based on evidence, such as the statements of jurors.

The Prejudice Factor

The Wealth Factor

So?

Conclusion

The problem with the first draft was that you tried to make general statements about the nature of criminal trials based on a fifteen-year-old made-for-TV extravaganza whose motive parts (most importantly, the total failure of the trial judge) you tried to treat as "normal" instead of exceptional. In response to my comments, which you more argued with than accepted, you made the general statements inferred from this problematic evidence into mere cliches and truisms, which no evidence—however strong or weak—could meaningfully affect. So the effect of Simpson was to inhibit insight rather than further it, as I suggested in the first place. Thinking hard about criminal trials would be a good idea; relying on that soap opera to help will always be a disappointment..

The Race Factor

Justice is not blind. In Jerome Frank argued that one must mold his/her case to fit the jury in order to win. Successfully doing this means accounting for the conscious and unconscious biases of those one is trying to persuade. Felix Cohen opined that one must understand the unconscious behaviors of human beings in order to understand how law works. How does one get a jury verdict that is seemingly inconsistent with the evidence presented? By forgetting, denying and/or ignoring the social realities confronting the jury.

The prosecution made several mistakes that the defense capitalized. One of those pivotal mistakes occurred when the prosecution actively chose to have the trial in downtown L.A., which resulted in a jury comprised of nine African-Americans, two Caucasians, and one Hispanic. Commentators at the time noted that the "prosecutors lost the criminal trial…the day the predominantly African-American jury was sworn in."

The mostly African American jury came from an inner-city that commonly felt distrust toward police officers and the judicial system. Thus the prosecution was at an immediate disadvantage as being a part of a system the jury found suspicious. Johnnie Cochran understood this well, and he used his excellent speaking and performance skills to play on the jury’s emotions. He evoked sentiments of Martin Luther King during his opening statement and took care to appeal to the jury’s black conscience throughout the trial. O.J. Simpson was raised poor but grew to have tremendous success as a star-athlete. Thus, some argued that because O.J. was one of few male heroes within the African American community, the jury sought to protect him from a system they felt was corrupt.

The Prejudice Factor

Frank strongly argued that the law, itself, never knows the facts. The facts are determined by those who testify at trials, what they look like and how they tell the story. The defense seized the facts and made it their own with a flamboyant performance, much to the chagrin of the prosecution who was not adequately prepared for this racial appeal. The defense convincingly challenged the credibility of the other side’s investigation, evidence and witnesses. They were very effective in finding the facts for the fact finders, the jury. For example, the defense completely discredited evidence against O.J. found by police officer, Mark Furhman, by using his racist remarks as proof that he could not be trusted. Furhman’s character flaws were further used to cast a shadow on the entire investigation by insinuating that the LAPD was trying to frame O.J. The prosecution failed to recover from its gaffes, and the jury’s previous distrust for the police only grew. The defense successfully undermined any faith the jury had in the prosecution’s evidence.

The Wealth Factor

Another profound effect of the O.J. Simpson trial was the growing perception that money could buy justice. Frank argued that money could buy control of the facts, and this was how wealth and power often won in court. Even with a mountain of evidence against him, O.J. was able to gather a team of the best lawyers in the country who engaged in an aggressive assault on dismantling the prosecution’s case. O.J. was a huge celebrity. With that celebrity came notoriety and his fame brought him riches. O.J.’s wealth afforded his team access to resources that were directly on par with that of the prosecution, a rare occurrence in regular low-profile day-to-day criminal trials. Having the resources to buy the services of such esteemed attorneys also gave O.J. an advantage over regular defendants who might have been in his place. The private lawyer’s fee works as an incentive for the defense to work even harder to win the case. The lawyers in this case also had something to gain as well if they won: their own increased fame and notoriety thereby increasing their riches.

Conclusion

Conclusion Trials are performances that play on human emotions. The evidence is certainly relevant but, as the O.J. Simpson trial illustrated, the psyche and social experiences of the jury are substantially important as well. Holmes argued that the law is made of tradition and history. Indeed, the way the law played out in the O.J. Simpson trial correlated with the mostly black jury’s history of racism and traditional distrust of law enforcement. The lesson learned from this case is that juries are comprised of people who will consider more than just the evidence presented during trial. Human beings interact and react to their social realities, which can turn a seemingly unwinnable case for the defense into an acquittal.

*If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit*

-- By StephanieOduro - 26 Feb 2010

Introduction

Criminal jury trials are complex mechanisms for finding “justice” that are not infallible. Arguing a case in front of a jury is not an exact science. Despite evidence present at trial, verdicts rendered are subject to the whims of the jury. The “dream team” defense at the O.J. Simpson trial was an excellent example of creative lawyering. The verdict was further proof that law is not a science; it is an art of persuasion. The O.J. Simpson trial taught this lesson by demonstrating what is and is not effective during a jury trial. It was also symbolic for revealing the ugly divide between minority and majority perceptions of the criminal justice system.

The Evidence

Whether or not one agrees with the verdict of the trial, the prosecution had more than enough evidence to convict O.J. Simpson. Prosecutor Marcia Clark proclaimed that the finding blood "in the defendant's car, in his house, in the driveway and even on the socks in his very bedroom at the foot of his bed, that trail of blood from (the crime scene) through his own Ford Bronco into his house…is devastating proof of his guilt."

I don’t think I’m writing as though the prosecutors were novices. My point is that the prosecution, for all their experience, made some very trivial mistakes. I also believe that the sheer amount of evidence that they had, made them overconfident. They had more than enough evidence to convict, so I can see where that confidence came from.

The Race Factor

Two paragraphs down, I explained that the “mostly African American jury came from an inner-city that commonly felt distrust toward police officers and the judicial system.” That’s part of the reason why the jury was badly chosen for the prosecution. Perhaps I should move that paragraph up.

I agree but Cochran had a big part in swaying the jury. I think that his flair, appeals to the Civil Rights Movements and his doubt cast on the entire police department touched a chord with the mostly black jury. While I don’t think the jury was by any means stupid, I do think that they were easily influenced.

The Prejudice Factor

The Wealth Factor

I’m not sure what you mean when you say that “working parity in the courtroom is attainable for defendants who have, in comparison to Simpson as he was, minimal resources.” From the prosecution’s side, yes, this is true. The prosecution spends close to the same whether the defendant is rich or poor. But I don’t think you can say a rich defendant who has a dream team defense and an indigent defendant who has an over worked public defender are both likely to get the same kind of defense. They COULD theoretically get the same defense but, in reality, money can and usually does buy a better defense team.

Conclusion

I did show it in the prior paragraphs. With the limited space, I could not go into great detail. But I did mention the background and thinking that affected the jurors on the O.J. Simpson jury.

I didn’t think this was relevant for my arguments because my focus was with what happened at the actual trial and the performance of the O.J. defense that helped convince the jury that he should be acquitted. From my recollection, the jury was sequestered so the television aspect doesn’t really fit in with courtroom drama that I’m focused on.

While I appreciate the criticism, there were so many aspects to the trial and I could not focus on all of them. The purpose of my essay was to address the performance of the defense in getting O.J. Simpson acquitted, and I spoke about race, prejudice, and wealth. The paper length is too short for me to address at length the role the media in addition to the other elements that helped the defense in 1,000 words.

In addition, I chose the O.J. Simpson trial because it was an extraordinary example of lawyering and performance, some things were spend a good amount of time talking about in class. It was not a regular trial with regular result and that why I think it’s a good example to use. I also agree that celebrity played a part and I mentioned it in my paper. With celebrity comes notoriety and his fame brought him riches. Both the notoriety and the riches helped him during the trial.

You are writing as though the prosecutors were novices who didn't know about trials, or who had never faced a competent defense. That's not true. So until you interpret them correctly, you're unlikely to make sense of what happened.

Maybe. But if the jury was a badly-chosen jury from the government's point of view, the race of the jurors is not the sole or predominant problem. If you're going to assert that the prosecution made jury selection mistakes, you need to say more than just that they weren't white people. Prosecutors convict non-white defendants before non-white juries every day of the week in the urban United States.

Maybe. That's an assertion.

The defense did what defenses often do when the evidence appears strong: they attacked the integrity of the police. That they did so successfully had something to do with Cochran, and something to do with Furhman, as well as something to do with the jury.

The prosecution was not adequately prepared for this racial appeal. They also failed to recognize the performance aspect of the trial. One cannot underestimate the correlation between the defense’s flamboyant performance and the jury verdict.

Of course one can, as one can overestimate it, which you may be doing. Anyone who has watched a broad selection of criminal trials has seen flamboyance both succeed and fail enough to doubt that there is a correlation, which you do not show but merely assert. Similarly, prosecutorial behavioral restraint is learned conduct, with its own strong social psychology basis. Characterizing it as a hapless non-response to showboating is tone-deaf.

Frank strongly argued that the law, itself, never knows the facts. The facts are determined by those who testify at trials, what they look like and how they tell the story. The defense seized the facts and made it their own, much to the chagrin of the prosecution.

That's the contest in many criminal trials. To say it happened is just another way of saying the prosecution failed. The importance lies in showing how or why.

This is immensely overstressed. The State doesn't spend heavily on the prosecution of most trials either, and although its resources are in theory unlimited, working parity in the courtroom is attainable for defendants who have, in comparison to Simpson as he was, minimal resources.

This may well be true, but you haven't shown it, just hypothesized it.

Holmes argued that the law is made of tradition and history. Indeed, the way the law played out in the O.J. Simpson trial correlated with the mostly black jury’s history of racism and traditional distrust of law enforcement.

Well and good. But those elements are present all the time in many courtrooms. Until you mention the word "television," you haven't even begun discussing what is really going on.

The lesson learned from this case is that juries are comprised of people who will consider more than just the evidence presented during trial. Human beings interact and react to their social realities, which can turn a seemingly unwinnable case for the defense into an acquittal.

Perhaps that's the lesson to learn here; I would be more inclined to use for an illustration of these fundamental and rather well-worn points a less atypical trial situation. This case offers an opportunity to consider issues you do not consider at all: the relation between the media and trial process, the nature of television, the effect of defendant celebrity on the outcasting process that prosecution necessarily involves, and the effect of instant celebrity on other trial participants. If you want to write about these matters, this particular trial is a necessary incident. If you want to write about other aspects of the trial process, however, this is a poor instance to choose, because the things that make it different, all but pathological, drown out the elements it shares with other criminal trials conducted under more routine conditions.

*If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit*

-- By StephanieOduro - 26 Feb 2010

Introduction

Criminal jury trials are complex mechanisms for finding “justice” that are not infallible. Arguing a case in front of a jury is not an exact science. Despite evidence present at trial, verdicts rendered are subject to the whims of the jury. The “dream team” defense at the O.J. Simpson trial was an excellent example of creative lawyering. The verdict was further proof that law is not a science; it is an art of persuasion. The O.J. Simpson trial taught this lesson by demonstrating what is and is not effective during a jury trial. It was also symbolic for revealing the ugly divide between minority and majority perceptions of the criminal justice system.

The Evidence

Whether or not one agrees with the verdict of the trial, the prosecution had more than enough evidence to convict O.J. Simpson. Prosecutor Marcia Clark proclaimed that the finding blood "in the defendant's car, in his house, in the driveway and even on the socks in his very bedroom at the foot of his bed, that trail of blood from (the crime scene) through his own Ford Bronco into his house…is devastating proof of his guilt."

The tremendous amount of evidence collected from the crime scene gave the prosecution a false sense of security. They were overconfident in their ability to win the trial. However, the prosecution made a fatal error in believing that the weight of their evidence alone could win over the jury. Like Oliver Wendell Holmes expounded in The Path of the Law, the law is not made of logic. The courtroom is not an arena where truth and justice naturally prevail. Legal outcomes are sometimes random and unpredictable, and this was part of the systemic defect that led to the prosecution’s loss.

The Race Factor

The prosecution made several mistakes that the defense capitalized. They actively chose to have the trial in downtown L.A., which resulted in a jury comprised of nine African-Americans, two Caucasians, and one Hispanic. Commentators at the time noted that the "prosecutors lost the criminal trial…the day the predominantly African-American jury was sworn in."

Justice is not blind. In Jerome Frank’s book Courts on Trial: Myth & Reality in American Justice, Frank argued that shaping a jury shapes the outcome of a case. One must mold his/her case to fit the jury in order to win. Successfully doing this means accounting for the conscious and unconscious biases of those one is trying to persuade. Felix Cohen opined in Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach that one must understand the unconscious behaviors of human beings in order to understand how law works. How does one get a jury verdict that is seemingly inconsistent with the evidence presented? By forgetting, denying and/or ignoring the social realities confronting the jury.

The mostly African American jury came from an inner-city that commonly felt distrust toward police officers and the judicial system. As part of O.J.’s defense team, Johnnie Cochran understood this well. Cochran used his excellent speaking and performance skills to play on the jury’s emotions. He evoked sentiments of Martin Luther King during his opening statement and took care to appeal to the jury’s black conscience throughout the trial. O.J. Simpson was raised poor but grew to have tremendous success as a star-athlete. Thus, some argued that because O.J. was one of few male heroes within the African American community, the jury sought to protect him from a system they felt was corrupt.

The prosecution was not adequately prepared for this racial appeal. They also failed to recognize the performance aspect of the trial. One cannot underestimate the correlation between the defense’s flamboyant performance and the jury verdict. Frank strongly argued that the law, itself, never knows the facts. The facts are determined by those who testify at trials, what they look like and how they tell the story. The defense seized the facts and made it their own, much to the chagrin of the prosecution.

The Prejudice Factor

The defense convincingly challenged the credibility of the other side’s investigation, evidence and witnesses. They were very effective in finding the facts for the fact finders, the jury. For example, the defense completely discredited evidence against O.J. found by police officer, Mark Furhman, by using his racist remarks as proof that he could not be trusted. Furhman’s character flaws were further used to cast a shadow on the entire investigation by insinuating that the LAPD was trying to frame O.J. The prosecution failed to recover from its gaffes, and the jury’s previous distrust for the police only grew. The defense successfully undermined any faith the jury had in the prosecution’s evidence.

The Wealth Factor

Another profound effect of the O.J. Simpson trial was the growing perception that money could buy justice. Frank argued that money could buy control of the facts, and this was how wealth and power often won in court. Even with a mountain of evidence against him, O.J. was able to gather a team of the best lawyers in the country who engaged in an aggressive assault on dismantling the prosecution’s case. O.J.’s wealth afforded his team access to resources that were directly on par with that of the prosecution, a rare occurrence in regular low-profile day-to-day criminal trials.

Conclusion

Trials are performances that play on human emotions. The evidence is certainly relevant but, as the O.J. Simpson trial illustrated, the psyche and social experiences of the jury are substantially important as well. Holmes argued that the law is made of tradition and history. Indeed, the way the law played out in the O.J. Simpson trial correlated with the mostly black jury’s history of racism and traditional distrust of law enforcement. The lesson learned from this case is that juries are comprised of people who will consider more than just the evidence presented during trial. Human beings interact and react to their social realities, which can turn a seemingly unwinnable case for the defense into an acquittal.