Last night, thirteen years to the day from his "If it don't fit, you must acquit" verdict O.J. Simpson was found guilty of 12 counts of robbery and kidnapping. When he is sentenced in December he could face life in prison. One of his defense guys said "He is extremely upset, extremely emotional." O.J.s co-defendent's lawyer yammered about how the two defendents should have had their trials separated. Anything around O.J. seems to attract hype.
When the murder verdict was announced I was one of the few people in the country that was willing to accept it. For some strange reason I had been in LA for the summations visiting clients and thus heard all four summations. I had not followed the trial, in part because I was annoyed at the coverage it received. I thought, even though I was concerned about the Judge's seeming preening and Johnnie Cochran's outrageous antics that the jurors would be able to sort out the facts. The summations of the prosecution were incompetent. Neither was very well organized. Neither did a reasonable job of summarizing their case. Both could be used as bad examples in law schools. Cochran's summation was comical - he seemed to care little for courtroom decorum or for the facts in the case. But the last summation, by Barry Schenk, was excellent. He began with a short discussion of the concept of reasonable doubt and then carefully broke down a number of issues in the case where he asserted there could be reasonable doubt.
O.J.s trial launched a number of people's careers as media bimbos. You know the type - paraded by cable news as experts who comment on almost everything and make almost any story they are involved with somewhat salacious. One wishes that with O.J.s conviction that trend would be ended. But I doubt it will.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment