Remember how quickly the jury deliberated in OJ's trial? Here are some insights from an LA attorney.

[MarathonMike]

Less than 4 hours, but as a couple jurors admitted afterward, they had already decided and just "stretched it out" to make it look good. FWIW this was a post from an attorney familiar with California and Johnny Cochrane:


I have some special insight into this question and its answer.

At the time of the trial I was a Deputy City Attorney whose office was across the street from the downtown court house. I did not work for the District Attorney’s Office but the paths of the two offices often crossed.

This case was extraordinarily politically influenced and crafted by the top players. The jury was not assigned, it was picked by a team headed by Johnnie Cochran a, now deceased talented attorney, who made a career out of challenging police actions by alleging racism and two prosecutors were assigned by the District Attorney, Marcia Clark an aggressive white woman known for being caustic and Christopher Darden, a gentle black man,

Johnnie Cochran due to his connections in, and support o,f, the black community was an enormous influence with the Los Angeles black vote: a key vote segment that could affect the election of officials such as the District Attorney. influencing the electorate which elected the District Attorney. His support was keenly sought by many politicians.

The trial was originally scheduled to be tried in Santa Monica, where O J lived and the crime occurred —- not an area that was believed to be sympathetic to a black star accused of killing a local white female resident. Juries in Santa Monica were notoriously non black. O.J. was a hero in the black community. And Johnnie Cochran knew that and knew how to handle it.

Johnnie Cochran convinced the District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, whose office was 15 miles away from the Santa Monica courthouse that it would be to his political , tactical advantage and convenience to try it in downtown Los Angeles in a court across from the District Attorney’s Office and City Hall, where the District Attorney could simply walk over and view the trial or talk to his team, rather than 15 miles away in Santa Monica. So the trial was moved with the consent of the prosecution and defense; and the judge over the case, at that time agreed.

Everyone who had any insight to courthouse operations and the involved political forces knew that it was a very crafty move since Santa Monica juries at that time were predominantly non white and downtown juries were predominantly black and that move was highly advantageous for the defense of O.J.

A prosecution team was selected by the District Attorney, with an eye to its effect, Then all that needed to happen was an all black jury —- which was almost inevitable given the new location.

Therefore to answer your question: the jury was not assigned, it was crafted through shrewd decisions by Mr. Cochran and political considerations. O.J. benefited from that—in the short run.

9.9K views
View upvotes
View 1 share

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There wasn't an all black jury.

 

[rampart]

Less than 4 hours, but as a couple jurors admitted afterward, they had already decided and just "stretched it out" to make it look good. FWIW this was a post from an attorney familiar with California and Johnny Cochrane:


I have some special insight into this question and its answer.

At the time of the trial I was a Deputy City Attorney whose office was across the street from the downtown court house. I did not work for the District Attorney’s Office but the paths of the two offices often crossed.

This case was extraordinarily politically influenced and crafted by the top players. The jury was not assigned, it was picked by a team headed by Johnnie Cochran a, now deceased talented attorney, who made a career out of challenging police actions by alleging racism and two prosecutors were assigned by the District Attorney, Marcia Clark an aggressive white woman known for being caustic and Christopher Darden, a gentle black man,

Johnnie Cochran due to his connections in, and support o,f, the black community was an enormous influence with the Los Angeles black vote: a key vote segment that could affect the election of officials such as the District Attorney. influencing the electorate which elected the District Attorney. His support was keenly sought by many politicians.

The trial was originally scheduled to be tried in Santa Monica, where O J lived and the crime occurred —- not an area that was believed to be sympathetic to a black star accused of killing a local white female resident. Juries in Santa Monica were notoriously non black. O.J. was a hero in the black community. And Johnnie Cochran knew that and knew how to handle it.

Johnnie Cochran convinced the District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, whose office was 15 miles away from the Santa Monica courthouse that it would be to his political , tactical advantage and convenience to try it in downtown Los Angeles in a court across from the District Attorney’s Office and City Hall, where the District Attorney could simply walk over and view the trial or talk to his team, rather than 15 miles away in Santa Monica. So the trial was moved with the consent of the prosecution and defense; and the judge over the case, at that time agreed.

Everyone who had any insight to courthouse operations and the involved political forces knew that it was a very crafty move since Santa Monica juries at that time were predominantly non white and downtown juries were predominantly black and that move was highly advantageous for the defense of O.J.

A prosecution team was selected by the District Attorney, with an eye to its effect, Then all that needed to happen was an all black jury —- which was almost inevitable given the new location.

Therefore to answer your question: the jury was not assigned, it was crafted through shrewd decisions by Mr. Cochran and political considerations. O.J. benefited from that—in the short run.

9.9K views
View upvotes
View 1 share

it has been a while, but i seem to remember that the lapd framed the guilty guy?

 

[gtopa1]

It's been many years and I am still not sure at all though I lean guilty but not enough with the "reasonable doubt" thing. The "armed robbery" conviction was garbage imo; just a "get even" for beating the murder rap. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Greg

 

[jbrownson0831]

It's been many years and I am still not sure at all though I lean guilty but not enough with the "reasonable doubt" thing. The "armed robbery" conviction was garbage imo; just a "get even" for beating the murder rap. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Greg

OJ did it no question.

 

[Seymour Flops]

it has been a while, but i seem to remember that the lapd framed the guilty guy?

One way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is, when you prosecute someone for a serious crime or even a non-serious crime but you over prosecute, you need to have clean hands yourself.

Detective Mark Furman exemplified everything that was wrong with the Los Angeles Police Department at that time. a guy who tried to get a medical discharge by claiming he was traumatized, and that the trauma had turned him into a racist so he couldn’t be an effective police officer. Either he was making that up to fraudulently get disability, or he was truly an unredeemable racist. Either way, he doesn’t belong on a police force.

Then he got caught lying under oath, and at that point, the case was pretty much over, though nobody realized it at that time. I would have voted not guilty, myself, even though I strongly believe that OJ obviously committed the crime. But the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was plenty of reasonable doubt in the evidence found and presented by Furman.

That could be very instructive to our current new stories about the courts. Look at the rogues and partisan hacks that have been sent after Donald Trump. If he’s really so guilty, why can’t they find somebody clean and a political to prosecute him?

 

[rampart]

One way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is, when you prosecute someone for a serious crime or even a serious crime but you over prosecute, you need to have clean hands yourself.

Detective Mark Furman exemplified everything that was wrong with the Los Angeles Police Department at that time. a guy who tried to get a medical discharge by claiming he was traumatized, and that the trauma had turned him into a racist so he couldn’t be an effective police officer. Either he was making that up to fraudulently get disability, or he was truly an unredeemable racist. Either way, he doesn’t belong on a police force.

Then he got caught lying under oath, and at that point, the case was pretty much over, though nobody realized it at that time. I would have voted not guilty, myself, even though I strongly believe that OJ obviously committed the crime. But the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was plenty of reasonable doubt in the evidence found and presented by Furman.

That could be very instructive to our current new stories about the courts. Look at the rogues and partisan hacks that have been sent after Donald Trump. If he’s really so guilty, why can’t they find somebody clean and a political to prosecute him?

one might say the same of the witnesses in the hunter biden affair, if you coujd find them.

we need to "cease fire" and hold a sqyeeky clean election, but that horse is out of the barn.

 

[MarathonMike]

The point of the thread is, when you have the control over jury selection and the support of the local community that Johnny Cochrane had, the entire trial was reduced to a formality with the "innocent" verdict guaranteed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Anyone that took the time to watch the trial would know why he was found not guilty.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The point of the thread is, when you have the control over jury selection and the support of the local community that Johnny Cochrane had, the entire trial was reduced to a formality with the "innocent" verdict guaranteed.

And that point was absolutely not well supported by the OP, much less proven.

All I saw was an article that implies that black people are mindless. Therefore, the verdict was predetermined.

Not a good argument.

 

[MarathonMike]

Anyone that took the time to watch the trial would know why he was found not guilty.

I watched it, and saw a mountain of evidence ignored by a clearly partisan jury.

 

[MarathonMike]

And that point was absolutely not well supported by the OP, much less proven.

All I saw was an article that implies that black people are mindless. Therefore, the verdict was predetermined.

Not a good argument.

Truth is always the best argument. The attorney provided some detailed insight into how such a partisan jury was crafted.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The point of the thread is, when you have the control over jury selection and the support of the local community that Johnny Cochrane had, the entire trial was reduced to a formality with the "innocent" verdict guaranteed.

That's pretty much a jury of ones peers though, it is supposed to deter overzealous prosecution...in any case white liberals are the ones who want[ed] the book thrown at Oj...oj is the textbook example of how the media [white liberals] want us fighting with one another while they remain above the fray...
...OJ IS INNOCENT...by all accounts including and especially the law.

 

[MarathonMike]

That's pretty much a jury of ones peers though, it is supposed to deter overzealous prosecution...in any case white liberals are the ones who want[ed] the book thrown at Oj...oj is the textbook example of how the media [white liberals] want us fighting with one another while they remain above the fray...
...OJ IS INNOCENT...by all accounts including and especially the law.

"A jury of one's peers" does not mean a jury heavily biased in your favor. The trial is part of history. This thread was intended to add some insights to the jury and location which has largely been overlooked.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"A jury of one's peers" does not mean a jury heavily biased in your favor. The trial is part of history. This thread was intended to add some insights to the jury and location which has largely been overlooked.

The defense was masterful, and the prosecution made mistake after mistake. Every piece of evidence was tainted by the defense and the prosecution never won a point in court.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

"A jury of one's peers" does not mean a jury heavily biased in your favor. The trial is part of history. This thread was intended to add some insights to the jury and location which has largely been overlooked.

fair enough, I just feel that "innocent until proven guilty" is taken far to lightly as it is the cornerstone of our legal system...I probably would have voted "not guilty" had I been on the jury.