Thanks to the new mini series and 30 for 30; there's alot of renewed interest in the OJ trial. I've been asked about it alot. Did he do it? How can his lawyers live with themselves? How did he win? How did the prosecution lose? I haven't watched any of the recent OJ material, so if any of it is duplicate information, my apologies.
As Denzel Washington's character (Alonzo Harris) said in Training Day: "Its not what you know. Its what you can prove". This is true in all cases, but especially so in the OJ trial. Very very few people think OJ was actually innocent. But that isn't the standard. A criminal defendant MUST be presumed innocent, and proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury panel, in all their interviews said just that - the prosecution didn't meet their burden.
Without a doubt, this is a case the prosecution should've won. There was the history of domestic violence, DNA evidence at the scene, motive, opportunity, etc. But the police and the prosecution fell to a common error - trying to turn a good case into an air tight case. They paid for it with a loss, and their careers.
The direct evidence they had (OJ's blood at the scene, etc) was torn apart by the defense team, because the police did a terrible job handling the evidence. Mark Fuhrman was a known racist, and should've never been the lead detective on the case; or any case for that matter. There were allegations of evidence being planted. When asked about it on the stand, Fuhrman plead the fifth. Someone pleads the fifth when their answers to a question could result in them incriminating themselves. Even though noone can say definitely - the only possible outcome one can deduce given the response was that Fuhrman had planted evidence.
Also the prosecution drug their part of the trial out far too long. The more they presented, the more holes the defense team tore in the case. As a wise judge once told me while I was arguing a motion early in my career, "Mr. Ashley, if you'll just be quiet, I'll go ahead and rule for you".
Its always best to prove your case as efficiently as possible. Anything else is a waste, and opens up weaknesses that aren't there otherwise. In fact, many of the openings they gave the defense team was by putting on iffy testimony that wasn't even necessary. It seemed like the prosecution's ego demanded they try to out wrangle the dream team rather than putting on their best case.
We all remember the moment where Darden requested OJ put on the glove; which was a spectacular failure. Like I said above, this was totally unnecessary. The glove itself was plenty good enough. Plus its a good teaching point for all lawyers - never swing for the fences unless you KNOW its going to work. No way this should've been attempted, because there was no way Darden could've known if the glove would fit or not. It didn't, and it became the basis for the theme in Cochran's masterful closing - "If it [the glove] doesn't fit, you must acquit",
Nothing wrong with having a good case. But bad things happen when you try to take a good case, and stretch it into a great case. This was a perfect example.
Speaking about the dream team, here are some of the important players:
- Robert Kardashian: Yes, believe it or not, there was a time when Kardashian wasn't a household name. Now hes famous for being Kim's dad, the man was also on the dream team, but wasn't really much of a cog in the defense wheel. Kardashian was a long time friend of OJ, and was used more of a liason/handler than an attorney. In fact, when he became part of the dream team, Kardashian hadnt practiced law in 20 years, and had NEVER tried a criminal case.
- Robert Shapiro: Known more for his negotiating than his trial expertise, Shapiro already had a reputation for negotiating star athletes out of legal trouble. Shapiro was also a master at dealing with the media, and was held in high regard by Judge Lance Ito. Although Shapiro was initially lead counsel, he eventually fell out of favor with the rest of the dream team; likely due to the fact he wasn't a prominent or skilled trial lawyer.
- Barry Scheck: Much more low key than most of the dream team. However, some thing Scheck was the most important member defending Simpson. Known for having a masterful grip on the law and procedure. This was especially important in those days, before the internet made legal research much more efficient. Even more important, Scheck was an expert in challenging DNA evidence. This was crucial, because Scheck devastated the prosecution's witnesses when it came to the handling of the all important DNA evidence collected at the crime scene. His cross examination was 1 of the 3 important keys to the defense victory. Scheck started the innocence project, which uses DNA evidence to free wrongfully convicted death row inmates.
- F. Lee Bailey: Clearly in the twilight of his career at the time. Yet Bailey was widely regarded as the best criminal trial lawyer who ever lived. A true legend in the art of cross examination. His powerful cross examination of Mark Fuhrman was the 2nd of 3 keys to the acquittal. F. Lee Bailey was subsequently disbarred and no longer practices law.
- Johnnie Cochran: The charismatic Cochran rose to fame during the trial probably more so than any other of the dream team. Cochran eventually overtook the role of lead attorney from Shapiro, much to the disdain of Shapiro. Cochran delivered the masterful closing, which included "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit"; the 3rd of what I believe were the keys to the defense victory. He died in March of 2005.
How can a lawyer live with winning a case when the client is guilty? Personally, I never ever ask the client if they're guilty. May sound crazy, but whether they did it or not really doesn't matter. It just matters what the government can prove. If I ask that question, then it may make it harder to practice my case objectively; and being able to objectively evaluate my case at all times is extremely important.
I've won many trials I thought I should've lost. Not because I thought my clients were guilty. In fact, I wont try a case if I think my client is guilty as charged. But because the resources of the state/federal government are vast, and they are excellent at prosecuting a case. Trust me, you do NOT want to be in their cross hairs; especially without an excellent lawyer by your side.
After the OJ case, both Kardashian and Shapiro expressed their doubts about OJ's innocence. F. Lee Bailey maintains OJ is innocent. To my knowledge, neither Cochran nor Scheck have commented on the topic.
In the end, you cant buy freedom. However by hiring the best lawyer(s) possible, you can definitely increase your odds at winning; which is the next best thing. The defendant is presumed innocent, and only guilty if proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, "Its not what you know. Its what you can prove".
