Post by mcnutt on Feb 5, 2019 19:39:02 GMT
What the police could have done:
1 The defense made an issue of the sloppiness of the people who collected the evidence. There was poor record keeping. There was problems storing the evidence. Blood on Nichole’s back gate was found three weeks after the murder. This created a scandal. The crime lab got a budget increase and by 1997, two years after the trail, the Los Angeles Police Lab won accreditation. The POD is that the scandal happens in 1990, when the accused murderer of a beloved movie star gets off by pointing to mistakes in collection of blood samples. ITTL the LA Police Lab wins accreditation in 1992. So ITTL the employees of the accredited crime lab don’t make those mistakes. The defense can’t complain about the evidence gathering. This would also take care of another problem. A police officer, who didn’t want to do the paper work involved in taking a sample to the lab, took a vile of OJ’s blood to the crime scene and gave it to a criminologist. The fact that a police officer carried around OJ’s blood gave credibility to the defense argument that the police planted OJ’s blood. I assume an accredited crime lab would not allow this. ITTL the officer is forced to take the sample to the lab and do the paper work.
2 They should have gotten a warrant before going to OJ’s house. The detectives who went there said they were there to tell OJ of his ex wife’s death. Jurors had trouble believing that OJ was not a suspect from the beginning. The defense provided a witness who quoted one of the detectives saying OJ was a suspect when they went there the night of the murders. This hurt police credibility. The POD is that when neighbors discovered Nichole and Ron’s bodies, one of the neighbors is a good friend of Nichole’s and tells the police about her abusive ex husband. The police look up the record of OJ’s conviction for beating Nicole. OJ is immediately officially the prime suspect. I would give the police the ability to get a search warrant in the middle of the night. The judge who presided over O J’s beating trail is still on the bench. The police call and wake up the judge, who has search warrant forms and a fax machine at home. When the detectives arrive at OJ’s house he is the prime suspect and they have a search warrant.
What the prosecution could have done
1 One of the advantages of getting a search warrant by waking up a judge is that Marcia Clark does not become lead prosecutor. OTL the police at OJ’s house knew they would need a search warrant and the called the District Attorney’s office to ask for help getting the warrant. Clark took the call. She got the warrant and started talking to the press. She took over the case and did so incompetently. The District Attorney could not remove her for reasons related to office politics. Before he had been elected District Attorney, he had been a supervising prosecutor. He had been sued by a women prosecutor for discrimination. The suit was settled but the plaintiff was a friend of Marcia Clark. Getting rid of her would endanger him of being accused of revenge. ITTL the District Attorney is free to choose the lead prosecutor. He wanted someone with more experience than Clark. I assume the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office started hiring Black prosecutors at least by the 60s. So there would have been a Black male prosecutor with 30 years experience. He would have worked with Vincent Bugliosi and gotten to know him. He could at least asked Bugliosi for advice and prosecuted OJ they way Bugliosi said he would in his book Outrage.
2 in her first act of incompetence, Marcia Clark did not work with jury consultants. The consultants warned the prosecutors about the pro OJ constituency particularly among Black women. Clark thought that since Black women suffered such high rates of domestic violence, they would be sympathetic to the stories of OJ’s abuse of Nichole. She also had enjoyed success with Black women jurors during her career. The Jury consultant’s surveys found that they were the most forgiving demographic, when it came to domestic abuse. They also found that they were also OJ’s biggest supporters. In addition, the consultant foun many Black women reacted negatively to Marcia Clark. She was seen as a bitch emasculating a prominent Black man. ITTL the veteran prosecutor has an open mind about jury consultants, With the knowledge of the attitudes of potential jurors, the forewarned prosecution could have prepared and asked the right questions to determine bias toward OJ. OTL Clark asked potential jurors if they thought OJ’s acquittal was pay back for Rodney King and no one raised their hands. A juror did say that after the trail. That juror didn’t admit that attitude publicly during the jury selection process but more desecrate questions could have exposed pro OJ attitudes. OTL the prosecution did not use all of their challenges. ITTL they do. There is a more open minded jury.
3 The prosecution was criticized for not providing enough evidence of the abuse OJ inflicted on Nichole. Judge Ito allowed 12 incidents of OJ abusing Nichole. OTL they used 6, ITTL they present a persuasive case of the abuse.
4 The prosecution DNA expert was criticized by Jeffry Toobin in his book Run of His Life. Toobin called the DNA expert boring and confusing. ITTL the prosecution DNA expert does as good a job as the junior high science teacher who explained DNA to me. The jury understands the blood evidence.
5 ITTL the prosecution does not apologize as they did OTL. Marcia Clark said during jury selection: “You may not like me for bringing this case. Im not winning any popularity contests.” Christopher Darden said to the jury “ Nobody wants to do anything to this man. There is nothing personal about this but the law is the law.”
6 When the defense introduces race into trail. The prosecution introduces evidence of OJ’s lack of support for the Black community.
ITTTL the prosecution uses the following evidence that the OTL prosecution left out:
1 There was a witness who came forward saying the night of the murders, he saw O.J. at the airport standing by a trash can. Clark did not want to use him because he couldn’t be backed up. There was testimony that did support this witness. Kato Kailn said that as he helped OJ load his luggage into the limo, he reached for a small bad, OJ grabbed it and said I will take it myself. Those who saw OJ’s luggage after he returned did not see the small bag. ITTL the prosecution uses the airport witness and the backup testimony. They argue that the suitcase contained a bloody knife and shoes.
2 ITTL the prosecutor makes sure that witnesses know they are forbidden to sell their stories. OTL Jill Shivley testified to the Grand Jury that she saw OJ, driving a White Bronco, run a red light near the murder scene at about the time when the murder could have happened. OTL she went on a tabloid tv show and collected $ 5000. She was dropped as a witness. ITTL she does not sell out. The jury hears a witnesses who places OJ near the murder at the time of the killing. The prosecution uses a timeline for the murder that backs up Jill Shivley.
3 OJ flew to Chicago, after committing the murders. OTL the jury heard form the police officer who called OJ in Chicago and told him his ex wife had been killed, OJ shocked the officer. He did not ask any specific questions. The officer, a thirty year veteran, had performed that duty many times said that people always ask questions about how and when killed. OJ agreed to come back to Los Angles. According to Mark Partridge, the passenger who sat next to OJ on the flight home. OJ was well informed. He recalled that OJ told him that his ex wife and an another guy had been murdered in his ex wife’s garden. According to Partridge, that while OJ had only been told that his ex wife had been killed and killed usually means an accident and not been told about Goldman’s murder, not only knew that she and Ron Goldman had been murdered but where they had been murdered. In great act of incompetence, Clark did not call Partridge to testify. Once again,she did not like witnesses who could not be backed up. True, there was nobody who could confirm Partridge’s story, but OJ practically confessed to Partridge. Clark committed another act of incompetence after the defense called Partridge and asked him about OJ being upset on his flight home. Partridge, had written eight pages of notes about his recollections of sitting next to OJ and gave them to the police. He, a copyright lawyer, copyrighted the notes. He did not publish them but wanted to make sure that no one used them without his permission. Clark in her cross examination, just asked Partridge about copyrighting his notes. In his testimony, he mentioned learning about the murders during the flight. Partridge’s brief comments came during a tedious discussion of copyright, it would have been hard for the jury to grasp the importance of what Partridge said. ITTL Partridge is a star prosecution witness. Prosecutors can argue, how would OJ know what had happened, unless he was there?
4 Police officers greeted OJ, when he arrived in Los Angeles, OJ went to Police Headquarters and gave a statement that the police video taped. In another act of incompetence Clark did not show the video tape. ITTL the prosecution shows the video tape. In the statement OJ also said during the time of the murder he was getting ready to go to Chicago. OTL the jurors heard from the limo driver who took OJ to the airport. Who testified that after ringing OJ’s buzzer starting at 10:24 he finally got an answer at 10:55, after he saw a Black man, he figured to be about six feet tall enter OJ’s front door. The Black and six foot two OJ,apologized, saying he overslept and just got out of the shower. The prosecution can point to the two different stories and expose OJ as a liar. They can make the argument that OJ was lying both times and he was committing a murder at the time. In that statement the police asked OJ about the bandage on his left hand. He said he got a cut the day before, the day of the murders. He said he didn’t remember how he got the cut. The prosecution can call OJ a liar. They can ask the jurors don’t you remember when you hurt yourself? They can also point out that the glove found at the murder scene was a left glove and that there were drops of blood by the bloody footprints. They can argue the murdered lost his left glove and bleed from the left hand. They can point to the cut on the left hand as a sign of guilt. When the police asked about the blood they found at house and in his car, OJ said he was bleeding from his cut as he ran around getting ready to go to Chicago. The prosecutors can ask the jury if you cut yourself wouldn’t you stop the bleeding? They can say that a man upset by the fact he had just killed his children’s mother might not bother to stop the bleeding,
5 OTL the prosecution did not show the jury pictures and videos of OJ wearing the gloves. They did introduce the receipt of Nichole's purchase of the gloves. The defense pointed out that the receipt did not mention the size and color of the gloves. ITTL the prosecution will show the pictures and videos. After introducing into evidence the sales receipt for Nichole’s 1990 purchase of two pairs of large Aries Isotoner Light leather gloves, the prosecution can say that, while the receipt did not list the size and color, we have photos and a video of the defendant wearing them. This way they can stop a defense argument.
6 I don’t know about California jury instructions in 1995. When I did jury duty, one of our instructions was that flight was a sign of guilt. I have read that that is a standard instruction in many states. On June 17, 1994, the day OJ was charged with the murder. He was ordered to surrender at 11 AM. He did not do so. At noon that day, he and his friend AC Cowlings disappeared. The prosecution did not mention this. ITTL tells the jury about OJ’s flight and tells the jury it is a sign of guilt.
7 When he left, OJ left behind a suicide note. When the police finally caught up to Simpson and Cowlings. Cowlings got on his cell phone and told the police that OJ had a gun pointed at his head. I think being suicidal is a sign of guilt, particularly when you are accused with killing your children’s mother. The prosecution did not tell the jury OJ was suicidal. ITTL they do.
8 They also say that when OJ surrendered they found a gun in his possession. Which backed up the idea he was suicidal. When he gave up, OJ was also carrying other incriminating evidence. He had his passport. That shows he was thinking about leaving the country. There was also shirts, underwear and socks in the car. The prosecutors can say this is a sign OJ and AC were planning to be on the road for days. Another indication that they were thinking about escaping was that AC Cowlings had $8,750 in his pockets. These are all signs of flight which is evidence of guilt. OJ also had a disguise, a fake goatee and glasses. The prosecution could argue that OJ was not one to wear a disguise. They could provide testimony on how OJ loved to be recognized. The prosecutors could argue this is a sign he wanted to hide. OTL the jury was not told about any of this. ITTL the prosecutor uses this evidence to back up they idea that OJ’s was running away. OTL Clark did not use any of this.
Other Prosecution mistakes
1 In addition to using the evidence the OTL prosecutors did not use, ITTL the prosecutors will not allow the glove demonstration to happen. OTL after the damage was done and the jury saw OJ struggle to put on the gloves, Christopher Darden had a glove expert testify that gloves had shrunk. ITTL the expert is used to convince Judge Ito not allow the Simpson to put on the gloves, if the defense wants him to.
2 The plaintiff’s lawyers in the OJ law suit did a much better job than the prosecutors. In addition to using all the damming evidence that the prosecutors left out, they were much more efficient. The OJ criminal trail began on January 24, 1995, and the prosecution rested their case on July 6, 1995. The civil trail began on October 23, 1996, and the plaintiffs rested their case on December 9, 1996. If the prosecutors had been as efficient as the civil trail lawyers were and the defense took their same as OLT time the case would have gone to the jury in the second week of June instead of the beginning of October. The jury would have endured less of a burden. Also the defense would have taken almost twice as long as the prosecution.
3. They could have done what Bugliosi recommended. When Judge Ito said the defense could ask Mark Fuhrman if he had used the N word in the last ten years, Bugliosi said he would have told Fuhrman, that if he wants to help the prosecution case he has to confess to using the N word. He also would have told Fuhrman that the defense says the have witnesses that will testify to him using the N word. So if he denies it, he could face perjury charges. The prosecution puts Fuhrman on the stand. He apologizes and admits he has used the N word. He said he used it in anger over Black criminals. He goes on to say realizes it is wrong and has stopped using it. The jury will not hear the witnesses and the tapes where Fuhrman not only uses the N word but says more vile racist things. They were offered to show Fuhrman lied when said he had not used the N word. ITTL he does not lie.
4. OTL the prosecutors spent very little time contradicting the key defense argument that the police framed OJ. ITTL they spend much of their time explaining how a frame up is implausible and that there is no evidence of it.
What Judge Ito could have done.
Ito was accused of favoring the defense. The biggest damage he did to the prosecution came in one ruling. A Deputy Sheriff came forward and said that he heard OJ say something incriminating. Ito held a hearing and the Deputy testified that he was supervising a visitors room when Rosy Greet, the football star, who is an ordained minister was visiting O.J. to offer him counseling. The two of them were separated by glass wall and were talking through phones. This was a confidential conversation. The Deputy testified that as long as they were talking in a normal voice, he could not hear them. He further said that O.J. slammed down the phone and shouted something incriminating. He later told a tabloid that OJ shouted “I am sorry. I didn’t mean to do it.” In the hearing, he did not say what O. J. said. If he had been allowed to testify, the prosecution would have asked the Deputy what OJ said. The law is clear. If your having a confidential conversation and then you speak in a voice loud enough so that someone not eavesdropping can hear, you have given up your right of privacy. Ito ruled that while O.J. had waived his right of privacy, he had an expectation of privacy. He did not allow O.J.'s then unknown statement to be heard in court. Ito's ruling defied the law and defied logic. Why would O.J. expect privacy if he was shouting ten feet away from a Deputy Sheriff, who could clearly hear him. If the jury heard what was basically a confession, this would have been a great help to the prosecution case.
1 The defense made an issue of the sloppiness of the people who collected the evidence. There was poor record keeping. There was problems storing the evidence. Blood on Nichole’s back gate was found three weeks after the murder. This created a scandal. The crime lab got a budget increase and by 1997, two years after the trail, the Los Angeles Police Lab won accreditation. The POD is that the scandal happens in 1990, when the accused murderer of a beloved movie star gets off by pointing to mistakes in collection of blood samples. ITTL the LA Police Lab wins accreditation in 1992. So ITTL the employees of the accredited crime lab don’t make those mistakes. The defense can’t complain about the evidence gathering. This would also take care of another problem. A police officer, who didn’t want to do the paper work involved in taking a sample to the lab, took a vile of OJ’s blood to the crime scene and gave it to a criminologist. The fact that a police officer carried around OJ’s blood gave credibility to the defense argument that the police planted OJ’s blood. I assume an accredited crime lab would not allow this. ITTL the officer is forced to take the sample to the lab and do the paper work.
2 They should have gotten a warrant before going to OJ’s house. The detectives who went there said they were there to tell OJ of his ex wife’s death. Jurors had trouble believing that OJ was not a suspect from the beginning. The defense provided a witness who quoted one of the detectives saying OJ was a suspect when they went there the night of the murders. This hurt police credibility. The POD is that when neighbors discovered Nichole and Ron’s bodies, one of the neighbors is a good friend of Nichole’s and tells the police about her abusive ex husband. The police look up the record of OJ’s conviction for beating Nicole. OJ is immediately officially the prime suspect. I would give the police the ability to get a search warrant in the middle of the night. The judge who presided over O J’s beating trail is still on the bench. The police call and wake up the judge, who has search warrant forms and a fax machine at home. When the detectives arrive at OJ’s house he is the prime suspect and they have a search warrant.
What the prosecution could have done
1 One of the advantages of getting a search warrant by waking up a judge is that Marcia Clark does not become lead prosecutor. OTL the police at OJ’s house knew they would need a search warrant and the called the District Attorney’s office to ask for help getting the warrant. Clark took the call. She got the warrant and started talking to the press. She took over the case and did so incompetently. The District Attorney could not remove her for reasons related to office politics. Before he had been elected District Attorney, he had been a supervising prosecutor. He had been sued by a women prosecutor for discrimination. The suit was settled but the plaintiff was a friend of Marcia Clark. Getting rid of her would endanger him of being accused of revenge. ITTL the District Attorney is free to choose the lead prosecutor. He wanted someone with more experience than Clark. I assume the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office started hiring Black prosecutors at least by the 60s. So there would have been a Black male prosecutor with 30 years experience. He would have worked with Vincent Bugliosi and gotten to know him. He could at least asked Bugliosi for advice and prosecuted OJ they way Bugliosi said he would in his book Outrage.
2 in her first act of incompetence, Marcia Clark did not work with jury consultants. The consultants warned the prosecutors about the pro OJ constituency particularly among Black women. Clark thought that since Black women suffered such high rates of domestic violence, they would be sympathetic to the stories of OJ’s abuse of Nichole. She also had enjoyed success with Black women jurors during her career. The Jury consultant’s surveys found that they were the most forgiving demographic, when it came to domestic abuse. They also found that they were also OJ’s biggest supporters. In addition, the consultant foun many Black women reacted negatively to Marcia Clark. She was seen as a bitch emasculating a prominent Black man. ITTL the veteran prosecutor has an open mind about jury consultants, With the knowledge of the attitudes of potential jurors, the forewarned prosecution could have prepared and asked the right questions to determine bias toward OJ. OTL Clark asked potential jurors if they thought OJ’s acquittal was pay back for Rodney King and no one raised their hands. A juror did say that after the trail. That juror didn’t admit that attitude publicly during the jury selection process but more desecrate questions could have exposed pro OJ attitudes. OTL the prosecution did not use all of their challenges. ITTL they do. There is a more open minded jury.
3 The prosecution was criticized for not providing enough evidence of the abuse OJ inflicted on Nichole. Judge Ito allowed 12 incidents of OJ abusing Nichole. OTL they used 6, ITTL they present a persuasive case of the abuse.
4 The prosecution DNA expert was criticized by Jeffry Toobin in his book Run of His Life. Toobin called the DNA expert boring and confusing. ITTL the prosecution DNA expert does as good a job as the junior high science teacher who explained DNA to me. The jury understands the blood evidence.
5 ITTL the prosecution does not apologize as they did OTL. Marcia Clark said during jury selection: “You may not like me for bringing this case. Im not winning any popularity contests.” Christopher Darden said to the jury “ Nobody wants to do anything to this man. There is nothing personal about this but the law is the law.”
6 When the defense introduces race into trail. The prosecution introduces evidence of OJ’s lack of support for the Black community.
ITTTL the prosecution uses the following evidence that the OTL prosecution left out:
1 There was a witness who came forward saying the night of the murders, he saw O.J. at the airport standing by a trash can. Clark did not want to use him because he couldn’t be backed up. There was testimony that did support this witness. Kato Kailn said that as he helped OJ load his luggage into the limo, he reached for a small bad, OJ grabbed it and said I will take it myself. Those who saw OJ’s luggage after he returned did not see the small bag. ITTL the prosecution uses the airport witness and the backup testimony. They argue that the suitcase contained a bloody knife and shoes.
2 ITTL the prosecutor makes sure that witnesses know they are forbidden to sell their stories. OTL Jill Shivley testified to the Grand Jury that she saw OJ, driving a White Bronco, run a red light near the murder scene at about the time when the murder could have happened. OTL she went on a tabloid tv show and collected $ 5000. She was dropped as a witness. ITTL she does not sell out. The jury hears a witnesses who places OJ near the murder at the time of the killing. The prosecution uses a timeline for the murder that backs up Jill Shivley.
3 OJ flew to Chicago, after committing the murders. OTL the jury heard form the police officer who called OJ in Chicago and told him his ex wife had been killed, OJ shocked the officer. He did not ask any specific questions. The officer, a thirty year veteran, had performed that duty many times said that people always ask questions about how and when killed. OJ agreed to come back to Los Angles. According to Mark Partridge, the passenger who sat next to OJ on the flight home. OJ was well informed. He recalled that OJ told him that his ex wife and an another guy had been murdered in his ex wife’s garden. According to Partridge, that while OJ had only been told that his ex wife had been killed and killed usually means an accident and not been told about Goldman’s murder, not only knew that she and Ron Goldman had been murdered but where they had been murdered. In great act of incompetence, Clark did not call Partridge to testify. Once again,she did not like witnesses who could not be backed up. True, there was nobody who could confirm Partridge’s story, but OJ practically confessed to Partridge. Clark committed another act of incompetence after the defense called Partridge and asked him about OJ being upset on his flight home. Partridge, had written eight pages of notes about his recollections of sitting next to OJ and gave them to the police. He, a copyright lawyer, copyrighted the notes. He did not publish them but wanted to make sure that no one used them without his permission. Clark in her cross examination, just asked Partridge about copyrighting his notes. In his testimony, he mentioned learning about the murders during the flight. Partridge’s brief comments came during a tedious discussion of copyright, it would have been hard for the jury to grasp the importance of what Partridge said. ITTL Partridge is a star prosecution witness. Prosecutors can argue, how would OJ know what had happened, unless he was there?
4 Police officers greeted OJ, when he arrived in Los Angeles, OJ went to Police Headquarters and gave a statement that the police video taped. In another act of incompetence Clark did not show the video tape. ITTL the prosecution shows the video tape. In the statement OJ also said during the time of the murder he was getting ready to go to Chicago. OTL the jurors heard from the limo driver who took OJ to the airport. Who testified that after ringing OJ’s buzzer starting at 10:24 he finally got an answer at 10:55, after he saw a Black man, he figured to be about six feet tall enter OJ’s front door. The Black and six foot two OJ,apologized, saying he overslept and just got out of the shower. The prosecution can point to the two different stories and expose OJ as a liar. They can make the argument that OJ was lying both times and he was committing a murder at the time. In that statement the police asked OJ about the bandage on his left hand. He said he got a cut the day before, the day of the murders. He said he didn’t remember how he got the cut. The prosecution can call OJ a liar. They can ask the jurors don’t you remember when you hurt yourself? They can also point out that the glove found at the murder scene was a left glove and that there were drops of blood by the bloody footprints. They can argue the murdered lost his left glove and bleed from the left hand. They can point to the cut on the left hand as a sign of guilt. When the police asked about the blood they found at house and in his car, OJ said he was bleeding from his cut as he ran around getting ready to go to Chicago. The prosecutors can ask the jury if you cut yourself wouldn’t you stop the bleeding? They can say that a man upset by the fact he had just killed his children’s mother might not bother to stop the bleeding,
5 OTL the prosecution did not show the jury pictures and videos of OJ wearing the gloves. They did introduce the receipt of Nichole's purchase of the gloves. The defense pointed out that the receipt did not mention the size and color of the gloves. ITTL the prosecution will show the pictures and videos. After introducing into evidence the sales receipt for Nichole’s 1990 purchase of two pairs of large Aries Isotoner Light leather gloves, the prosecution can say that, while the receipt did not list the size and color, we have photos and a video of the defendant wearing them. This way they can stop a defense argument.
6 I don’t know about California jury instructions in 1995. When I did jury duty, one of our instructions was that flight was a sign of guilt. I have read that that is a standard instruction in many states. On June 17, 1994, the day OJ was charged with the murder. He was ordered to surrender at 11 AM. He did not do so. At noon that day, he and his friend AC Cowlings disappeared. The prosecution did not mention this. ITTL tells the jury about OJ’s flight and tells the jury it is a sign of guilt.
7 When he left, OJ left behind a suicide note. When the police finally caught up to Simpson and Cowlings. Cowlings got on his cell phone and told the police that OJ had a gun pointed at his head. I think being suicidal is a sign of guilt, particularly when you are accused with killing your children’s mother. The prosecution did not tell the jury OJ was suicidal. ITTL they do.
8 They also say that when OJ surrendered they found a gun in his possession. Which backed up the idea he was suicidal. When he gave up, OJ was also carrying other incriminating evidence. He had his passport. That shows he was thinking about leaving the country. There was also shirts, underwear and socks in the car. The prosecutors can say this is a sign OJ and AC were planning to be on the road for days. Another indication that they were thinking about escaping was that AC Cowlings had $8,750 in his pockets. These are all signs of flight which is evidence of guilt. OJ also had a disguise, a fake goatee and glasses. The prosecution could argue that OJ was not one to wear a disguise. They could provide testimony on how OJ loved to be recognized. The prosecutors could argue this is a sign he wanted to hide. OTL the jury was not told about any of this. ITTL the prosecutor uses this evidence to back up they idea that OJ’s was running away. OTL Clark did not use any of this.
Other Prosecution mistakes
1 In addition to using the evidence the OTL prosecutors did not use, ITTL the prosecutors will not allow the glove demonstration to happen. OTL after the damage was done and the jury saw OJ struggle to put on the gloves, Christopher Darden had a glove expert testify that gloves had shrunk. ITTL the expert is used to convince Judge Ito not allow the Simpson to put on the gloves, if the defense wants him to.
2 The plaintiff’s lawyers in the OJ law suit did a much better job than the prosecutors. In addition to using all the damming evidence that the prosecutors left out, they were much more efficient. The OJ criminal trail began on January 24, 1995, and the prosecution rested their case on July 6, 1995. The civil trail began on October 23, 1996, and the plaintiffs rested their case on December 9, 1996. If the prosecutors had been as efficient as the civil trail lawyers were and the defense took their same as OLT time the case would have gone to the jury in the second week of June instead of the beginning of October. The jury would have endured less of a burden. Also the defense would have taken almost twice as long as the prosecution.
3. They could have done what Bugliosi recommended. When Judge Ito said the defense could ask Mark Fuhrman if he had used the N word in the last ten years, Bugliosi said he would have told Fuhrman, that if he wants to help the prosecution case he has to confess to using the N word. He also would have told Fuhrman that the defense says the have witnesses that will testify to him using the N word. So if he denies it, he could face perjury charges. The prosecution puts Fuhrman on the stand. He apologizes and admits he has used the N word. He said he used it in anger over Black criminals. He goes on to say realizes it is wrong and has stopped using it. The jury will not hear the witnesses and the tapes where Fuhrman not only uses the N word but says more vile racist things. They were offered to show Fuhrman lied when said he had not used the N word. ITTL he does not lie.
4. OTL the prosecutors spent very little time contradicting the key defense argument that the police framed OJ. ITTL they spend much of their time explaining how a frame up is implausible and that there is no evidence of it.
What Judge Ito could have done.
Ito was accused of favoring the defense. The biggest damage he did to the prosecution came in one ruling. A Deputy Sheriff came forward and said that he heard OJ say something incriminating. Ito held a hearing and the Deputy testified that he was supervising a visitors room when Rosy Greet, the football star, who is an ordained minister was visiting O.J. to offer him counseling. The two of them were separated by glass wall and were talking through phones. This was a confidential conversation. The Deputy testified that as long as they were talking in a normal voice, he could not hear them. He further said that O.J. slammed down the phone and shouted something incriminating. He later told a tabloid that OJ shouted “I am sorry. I didn’t mean to do it.” In the hearing, he did not say what O. J. said. If he had been allowed to testify, the prosecution would have asked the Deputy what OJ said. The law is clear. If your having a confidential conversation and then you speak in a voice loud enough so that someone not eavesdropping can hear, you have given up your right of privacy. Ito ruled that while O.J. had waived his right of privacy, he had an expectation of privacy. He did not allow O.J.'s then unknown statement to be heard in court. Ito's ruling defied the law and defied logic. Why would O.J. expect privacy if he was shouting ten feet away from a Deputy Sheriff, who could clearly hear him. If the jury heard what was basically a confession, this would have been a great help to the prosecution case.