The Journey back to OJ

This weekend's story about bizarre behavior by OJ Simpson brought back memories of the criminal and civil trials related to Simpson's involvement in the murder of his wife and Ronald Goldman. When both trials happened I found myself in a strange position as a result of a business trip.

During the criminal trial I had either the good fortune or the bad to be in a car listening to all four summations. I had not paid much attention to the trial before then but because I was doing a series of client visits and had about an hour drive between each - I got to listen to Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck. What struck me at the time was how really bad the first three were in their summations. Clark had a hard time putting two logical thoughts together. Darden was not much better although he tried an emotional rap which, in my hearing, fell flat. Cochran was a clown who seemed more in love with his own theatrics than in trying to get to a conclusion. But then came Barry Scheck. Scheck's summation should be studied in law schools He began with a brief comment on the standard for criminal cases for judging a person guilty and then in a concise, yet compelling, order raised a series of questions which people could raise about several elements in the case.

Clark began her summation with this " I want to sit down and talk to you and tell you, "What do you want to know? What do you want to talk about?" Because that way I don't have to talk about stuff you don't want to hear, stuff that you don't want explained, stuff that you are not interested in, and I can't, and I always have a sense of frustration. So I'm sorry if I say things that you don't need to hear or I explain things that are already clear to you. Please bear with me because I am not a mind reader and I don't know. " It did not get much better. Darden said in part "And I don't know. This is the evidence in the case. You're going to have to decide what that means. You can interpret what he says. You don't have to just take it literally. You decide what that means. It could mean a couple things." Cochran had the line which attacked the court's dignity "If it did not fit, you must acquit." Sheck's analogy was to a bug in a bowl ""How many cockroaches do you have to find in a bowl of spaghetti" before you won't eat it? he asked. "This is reasonable doubt." But his rhetoric was backed by substantial and carefully prepared refutations of what Darden and Clark should have presented.

By the way Clark is now a "special" correspondent for Entertainment Tonight. Darden also left the prosecutor's office for jobs in academe in Southwestern Law School and CSU LA. Scheck is on the faculty of Benjamin Cardozo School of Law in NY.

I am not an attorney, although before I went back for my doctoral work, seriously considered getting a law degree. I was appalled by the conduct of the trial judge (Lance Ito - the joke at the time was "What do you call a small burro in Spanish - burrito and a small judge Judge Ito"). But Scheck did not engage in anything but in building doubt in the substance of the prosection case. Clark and Darden's summations were so weak that Scheck's careful defense was stunning in contrast. But the surprising thing for me is that based on hearing only the summaries and not having participated in the media circus leading up to the verdict, I might well have voted not guilty.

When the civil trial came up, with a slightly lower standard of proof, I was fully prepared to have them come to the conclusion they did. The simple answer for me was that since I did not have to sit through either trial (the civil judge was mounds higher in competence than Judge Ito) I was comfortable with both seemingly contradictory verdicts.

So what is going on here? The whole thing sounds so bizarre that I am not sure where the truth lies. I am tired of Simpson's shenanigans. If he is guilty (and from the preliminary stories it looks like he did something very stupid), then he should spend a lot of time in jail. But I am willing to let the jury system work once again. The only hope I can have is that the media will not see this as another circus pass. Unfortunately, my hope there is probably hopeless.