The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Religion & Culture / Atheist Fools
|Subject: Re: Hot Coffee||Date: 3/4/2013 7:13 PM|
|Author: 1poorguy||Number: 418851 of 432036|
That trial was a disgrace to the jury system and the judge as much or more than to the prosecution, which had a mountain of evidence that the jury chose to ignore.
From the post mortems I have read on this trial (as I said earlier, I didn't follow it at the time, beyond what I couldn't escape since it was in the news constantly), the blame has been placed firmly on the shoulders of the prosecution. They were ineffective, even incompetent. The LAPD also mishandled some of the evidence, calling it into question.
None of what I read blamed the jury, and in fact most say the jury came to the "proper" conclusion based on what they were given. OJ was innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecutor failed miserably in proving him guilty.
And that's not even considering the hypothesis that OJ was present, but not the actual killer. He didn't have nearly enough blood on him if he had been on the porch where Nicole was nearly decapitated.
Though I do find the idea of a "jury consultant" unsettling. I don't think we should allow such a thing in this country. I would argue that the lawyers shouldn't know a thing about any of the jurors until they start screening them with their questions. (Or is that the way it does happen, and I just watch too many movies?? ;-)
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|