O. J. Simpson Murder Case - Reaction To The Verdict

Reaction To The Verdict

In post-trial interviews with the jurors, a few said that they believed Simpson probably did commit the murders, but that the prosecution failed to prove their case. Three jurors published a book called Madam Foreman, in which they described how police errors, not race, led to their verdict, and that they considered prosecutor Darden to be a token black assigned to the case by the prosecutor's office.

Critics of the not-guilty verdict contend that the deliberation time was unduly short compared to the length of the trial, and that the jurors, most of whom did not have any kind of college education, did not understand the scientific evidence.

In 1996, defense attorney Robert Shapiro wrote a book, The Search for Justice, in which he criticizes F. Lee Bailey as a "loose cannon" and Johnnie Cochran for bringing race into the trial. He didn't believe Simpson was framed by the LAPD for racial reasons, but believed the verdict was correct due to reasonable doubt.

Defense attorney Johnnie Cochran also wrote a book in 1997 titled Journey to Justice which first details his childhood in Shreveport, Louisiana while going into minute detail about the case with charisma, as well as his bitterness toward Christopher Darden, Robert Shapiro, his ex-wife, and just about anyone else who crossed or disbelieved him during his most famous case.

Lead prosecutor Marcia Clark also wrote a book in 1998 about the case titled Without a Doubt. Her book painstakingly recounts the trial proceedings, from jury selection to final summation, and concludes that nothing could have saved her case, given the prominent role of race in the defense's strategy and the hostile black jury who heard it. In Clark's opinion, the prosecution's mountain of evidence should have convicted Simpson 20 times over; that it did not, she says, attests to a judicial system wracked by race and overly impressed by celebrity. Amidst war stories from the trial, Marcia Clark sprinkles plenty of details about her private life before and after the O.J. Simpson murder case, from a teenage rape to her ex-husband's custody suit.

Former LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman wrote a book in 1997 about the case titled Murder In Brentwood which detailed his investigation into the case.

Former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi (who had handled the Manson trial) wrote a book titled Outrage: The Five Reasons O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder. Bugliosi was very critical of Clark and Darden, faulting them, among other reasons, for not introducing the note that Simpson had written before trying to flee. Bugliosi contended that the note "reeked" of guilt and that the jury should have been allowed to see it. He also pointed out that the jury was never informed about items found in the Bronco: a change of clothing, a large amount of cash, a passport and a disguise kit. The prosecution explained that they felt these items of evidence would bring up emotional issues on Simpson's part that could harm their case, despite the fact that the items seemed as though they could be used for fleeing.

Simpson made an incriminating statement to police about cutting his finger the night the murders took place first by claiming to have accidentally cut his finger with a shard of broken glass in his Chicago hotel room, then changing his story minutes later that it was the tip of a knife, and later claiming not to remember at all how he received the cut on his left middle finger. Bugliosi took Clark and Darden to task for not allowing the jury to hear the police audio tape of this statement. Bugliosi also said the prosecutors should have gone into more detail about Simpson's abuse of his wife. He said it should have been made clear to the mostly African-American jury that Simpson had little impact in the black community and had done nothing to help blacks less fortunate than he was. Bugliosi pointed out that, although the prosecutors obviously understood that Simpson's race had nothing to do with the murders, once the defense "opened the door" by trying to paint Simpson falsely as a leader in the black community and that he might have been framed by the overzealous prosecution looking for a suspect, the evidence to the contrary should have been presented, to prevent the jury from allowing it to bias their verdict. Bugliosi also criticized the prosecution's closing statements as inadequate.

Rather than try the crime in mostly white Santa Monica, California, where murders occurring in Brentwood would normally have been held, Bugliosi claimed that the prosecution made a big mistake by deciding to have the trial in mostly nonwhite Los Angeles. During the jury selection process, the defense made it difficult for the prosecution to challenge potential black jurors on the grounds that it is illegal to dismiss someone from the jury for racially motivated reasons (California courts barred peremptory challenges to jurors based on race in People v. Wheeler, years before the U.S. Supreme Court would do so in Batson v. Kentucky).

District Attorney Garcetti's supporters noted that the decision to move the trial was actually that of the Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge, and not that of the District Attorney. The trial was moved due to security concerns and the poor condition of the Santa Monica Courthouse.

Another common criticism was that Garcetti was "micromanaging" the trial, and made the decision to have Simpson try the bloody leather gloves recovered at the scene of the murder and at Simpson's estate in open court. Simpson's hands appeared unable to fit into those gloves which was highly damaging to the prosecution's case. In fact, the decision to have Simpson try on the gloves was made by both Darden and Clark. Also, pundits criticized the prosecution for calling Mark Fuhrman to the witness stand in the first place and stated that the prosecution failed to do due diligence on his previous racist statements. The D.A.'s office argued that the defense would have called Fuhrman anyway and that no one knew of the existence of the McKinney tapes until after the trial actually started.

According to media reports, prosecutor Marcia Clark thought that women, regardless of race, would sympathize with the domestic violence aspect of the case and connect with her personally. On the other hand, the defense's research suggested that women generally were more likely to acquit than men. Also, the jurors did not respond well to Clark's combative style of litigation, and the defense also correctly speculated that black women would not be as sympathetic to a white woman as the victim. Both sides accepted a disproportionate number of female jurors. From an original jury pool of 40% white, 28% black, 17% Latino, and 15% Asian, the final jury for the trial had 10 women and two men, of which there were nine blacks, two whites, and one Latino.

Discussion of the racial elements of the case continued long after the trial's end. Some polls and some commentators have concluded that many blacks, while having their doubts as to Simpson's innocence, were nonetheless more inclined to be suspicious of the credibility and fairness of the police and the courts, and thus more likely to question the evidence. After the civil trial verdict against Simpson, most whites believed justice had been served and most blacks (75%) disagreed with the verdict and believed the verdict to be racially motivated. An NBC poll taken in 2004 reported that, although 77% of 1,186 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only 27% of blacks in the sample believed so, compared to 87% of whites. Whatever the exact nature of the "racial divide," to this very day, the Simpson case continues to be assessed through the lens of race with most white people believing Simpson to have committed the two murders, while most black people believe the opposite.

Judge Lance Ito was also criticized for allowing the trial to become a media circus and not doing enough to regulate the court proceedings as much as he could have. Many law critics claim that Ito allowed the courtroom proceedings to drag on needlessly, as well as allowed both prosecution and defense lawyers to get out of control with arguing with one another over presentation of the evidence. However, Ito and others present in the courtroom dispute this characterization, challenging critics to identify a proceeding that was not under anyone's control. Because the jury was sequestered, an attorney gag order would not have been supported by any appellate court, leading to often chaotic scenes outside the courthouse. Ito also allowed a jury field trip through O.J. Simpson's home after it had been supposedly stage dressed by the defense team, in one case replacing an artistic nude painting of Simpson's then-current girlfriend with a reproduction of Norman Rockwell's painting of Ruby Bridges being escorted to school in the Little Rock desegregation struggle. Ito was also criticized for the way that the jury was handled, bowing to defense team pressure to dismiss various jurors including Francine Florio-Bunten late in the trial.