If OJ Simpson stands before the angel Gabriel today, he may have a difficult case to make if this heavenly judge is as skeptical as most Americans.
But decades ago, in an earthly court, he was justly acquitted.
To the ‘armchair lawyers’ who say that the verdict in the so-called ‘Trial of the Century’ was a miscarriage of justice, I simply say: you do not understand the law.
In the American justice system, guilt is determined not by the subjective morals of the public, but by the objective presentation of evidence and the establishment of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
As a member of OJ’s defense team, I was able to persuasively argue that some of the evidence against him had been fabricated by Los Angeles Police Department officers.
Now, that doesn’t prove that OJ was innocent. But it does illuminate the reasoning behind the jury’s legitimate decision.
Of course, as OJ’s former attorney, it would be unethical for me to reveal my personal views on his guilt or innocence.
To the armchair lawyers who say that the verdict in the so-called Trial of the Century was a miscarriage of justice, I simply say: you do not understand the law.
Now, that doesn’t prove that OJ was innocent. But it does illuminate the reasoning behind the jury’s legitimate decision.
What I can say is that there was evidence of guilt, especially DNA evidence.
At trial, police claimed they found a blood-soaked sock near the bed in the home of his murdered ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson. DNA analysis indicated that some of that blood came from OJ, which allegedly placed the former football star at the crime scene.
However, defense experts discovered that the blood was contaminated by the chemical ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).
EDTA is not present in the human body. It is an additive used in laboratories to prevent clotting of blood samples. His presence suggested that blood had been applied to the sock after police picked it up.
Additionally, a professional ‘spatter analysis’ showed that the blood could have spilled onto the sock while it was lying down, rather than being sprayed while it was worn.
It could be argued then that the police had planted the bloody sock in a possible attempt to “frame” OJ, and that revelation destroyed the accusation.
If OJ had been an ordinary black defendant, who couldn’t afford expensive defense equipment, perhaps he would have been sent to prison. That’s why I take pro bono legal cases: to make sure my legal talents are distributed equitably between the poor and the rich.
It’s also why our defense team accepted a predominantly black jury – including nine black women – who would probably be more willing than whites to believe that the police would be so unscrupulous.
Racism in the LAPD was a reality for people living in Los Angeles at the time. Several years earlier, the acquittal of police officers involved in the beating of African-American Rodney King shocked that community and incited deadly and destructive riots. Of course, police misconduct was on jurors’ minds.
The second most important piece of evidence at the trial was the blood-stained glove, allegedly found by LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman on OJ’s property, which matched a glove found at Nicole Brown Simpson’s home.
That “evidence” was compromised both by the emergence of recordings of Fuhrman using racist slurs and, more crucially, by the prosecution’s own blunders.
Under California law, State Attorney Marcia Clark could have required OJ to first try on the glove outside of the jury’s presence. Then, she could have decided if she wanted to present the evidence in open court. But in her arrogance, she skipped this crucial step.
DNA analysis indicated that some of the blood on the sock came from OJ. However, defense experts discovered that the blood was contaminated by the chemical ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).
Under California law, State Attorney Marcia Clark could have required OJ to first try on the glove outside of the jury’s presence. Then, she could have decided if she wanted to present the evidence in open court. But in her arrogance, she skipped this crucial step.
He was sitting near the defense team table when OJ approached the jury box and struggled to get the glove on his hand, commenting “it’s too small.”
That pivotal moment not only gave the jury another reason to question the veracity of the evidence, but it also eliminated the need for OJ to take the stand in his own defense.
He had addressed the jurors without taking an oath and without any cross-examination. Why then would the defense subject him to cross-examination?
In fact, whether or not OJ should take the stand as a witness was a matter of deep division within our so-called ‘Dream Team’, which was more of a nightmare stirred by internal conflict.
Legendary attorney F. Lee Bailey insisted that OJ testify, but I was just as adamant against it. After OJ wrestled with the gloves, the matter was resolved.
That decision was later validated when OJ testified at his civil trial. He was quickly found responsible for the murders based largely on the same evidence, although obviously at a lower level of evidence.
But back in 1995, jurors heard the case just as I described it. So I would ask all those who say the verdict was a miscarriage of justice: would you have convicted a man based on false evidence?
In the law the end does not justify the means.
The tainted evidence doesn’t prove that OJ was innocent, but it helps explain how the jurors reached their decision.
This paradox is difficult for some to accept, but it is entirely appropriate in a legal system that requires an adequate process to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.