Author Topic: OJ  (Read 1183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17937
Re: OJ
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2020, 08:24:PM »
I agree with some of this, but I am troubled that the jury only deliberated for three and a half hours following a trial which lasted 11 months from start to finish. I agree with one of the defence lawyers Johnny Cochran, who from memory said they not only played the race card, but dealt it from the bottom of the deck. From Adam's video it's also hard not to conclude that the judge, being of Japanese descent with all the baggage that entailed, was biased in favour of the defence.

As for your point about wrongful death, I thought we had that provision in English law too, and don't forget we have abolished the double jeopardy law, unlike the USA.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2020, 08:45:PM by Steve_uk »

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: OJ
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2020, 02:35:PM »
As for your point about wrongful death, I thought we had that provision in English law too,

This is right and it's my mistake.  In fact, I am not sure that 'wrongful death' is a tort as such at all, in either jurisdiction.  In both, there's a statutory provision that allows for a damages claim in the event of death as a result of a 'wrongful act', which I take as drafters' language to mean that if death results from tortious conduct then it is actionable. 

In England, it's section 1(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, which I agree could cover murder.  There's the Young v Downey case, for instance, in which one of the original heads of claim was section 1(1); though a close reading of Yip's liability judgment suggests it was decided on the basis of secondary liability in tort rather than section 1(1).  See this link: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/APPROVED-JUDGMENT-Young-v-Downey-18.12.19.pdf

There's an interesting case going on in England at the moment: a wrongful death action against Kobe Murray over the death of Ryan Passey.

and don't forget we have abolished the double jeopardy law, unlike the USA.

My understanding is that we still have the rule against double jeopardy, but that the scope for a would-be prosecutor to ask the court to lift the protection has been expanded.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12617
Re: OJ
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2020, 08:13:PM »
but I am troubled that the jury only deliberated for three and a half hours following a trial which lasted 11 months from start to finish.

After being isolated in a hotel for 11 month they were all desperate to go home, hence they only deliberated for 3 hours. Who can blame them?

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: OJ
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2020, 09:24:PM »
After being isolated in a hotel for 11 month they were all desperate to go home, hence they only deliberated for 3 hours. Who can blame them?

The Browns and the Goldmans, for a start.

guest29835

  • Guest
Re: OJ
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2020, 10:52:PM »
I agree with some of this, but I am troubled that the jury only deliberated for three and a half hours following a trial which lasted 11 months from start to finish. I agree with one of the defence lawyers Johnny Cochran, who from memory said they not only played the race card, but dealt it from the bottom of the deck. From Adam's video it's also hard not to conclude that the judge, being of Japanese descent with all the baggage that entailed, was biased in favour of the defence.

The race issue is of interest to me generally, but at the same time, I think the significance of race can be overemphasised in particular instances.  To use a metaphor, it sometimes becomes a convenient 'coat to hang' an explanation of something on, when the apparent motives of actors seem puzzling.  "Oh, they're black, that must be it."  "He's white, that's why he did such-and-such".  Indeed, this is exactly what occurred with Mark Fuhrman.  All sorts of assumptions and inferences were made about his mindset and working practices based on very scant and shaky facts, none of which were even relevant to the case being tried.

My point is only that the simple fact that Simpson is black would not likely have been reason for acquittal.  To me, it's movie thinking to imagine that regular people sit around in a serious setting like that saying or thinking, 'He's black, so we'll let him go'. In the real world, black juries will convict black offenders, and when you strip away all the extraneous racial issues, the jurors were left with a strong case against Simpson (and it could have been still stronger, as a crucial piece of identification evidence was inexplicably excluded by Clark).  However, the jurors were scared for their lives, and after months of tedium, wanted to go home.  A person's safety is a core consideration.  It's fundamental.  I am told this was a jury of nine blacks, including seven black women.  If they followed the evidence and convicted Simpson, how could they face their families and colleagues and friends, all of whom would know they had served on the jury?  Balanced against this is the notion of civic duty that a juror has, which is to give both the defence and the prosecution a fair trial, but the sort of bravery that this duty would have demanded in these circumstances is, I think, vanishingly rare. 

The weak presentation of the case and the racial issues brought up by the defence to muddy the waters allowed a pretext for the jury to find a guilty man Not Guilty, in the face of strong evidence.  They knew that no white person would come looking for them in retribution for letting Simpson go, but blacks might come after them for convicting him.  The case should have been tried away from Los Angeles before a non-vested jury.