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.