re: The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story series long thread

One of the few things I agree with you on this topic...

Live...at the time, TV legal analysts were questioning the Dardin selection because he had little trial experience as an attempt to relate to the jury...and even though his presence seemed to backfire to the minority community and he he never looked comfortable against Cochran...he did take a lot of unwarranted guff right off the bat that clouded the trial, over Ito and Marcia's hair....he took a lot of questioning from Greta and Roger during the real trial in real time on CNN and a lot of it wasn't fair and muddled the trial about race...until of course, as Cochran started out lawyering him as the trial progressed - he was out of his depths compared to Cochran half way through the trial, and then his ill-fated glove demonstration in real life toward the end of the trial...which took the trial to pure lawyerly decisions and the debate vs eternal gaff or defendant misconduct...

Dershowitz, called Darden's decision to have Simpson try on the glove for the first time before the jury "the most stupid thing" a prosecutor could have done.

Darden, declared: "I think Johnnie tore the lining. There were some additional tears in the lining so that O.J.'s fingers couldn't go all the way up into the glove.

Darden said in a follow-up interview that he noticed that when Simpson was trying on a glove for the jury its structure appeared to have changed. "A bailiff told me the defense had it during the lunch hour."

Dershowitz called the claim that the defense had an opportunity to tamper with the gloves "a total fabrication" and said "the defense doesn't get access to evidence except under controlled circumstances."

"Having made the greatest legal blunder of the 20th Century," Dershowitz said of Darden, "he's trying to blame it on the dead man."

There's only one more episode. Pretty short series on a trial that lasted 9 months. Now that it's about to end, I find little value in this show. There's so much left out and not a lot of behind the scenes unknown events. In hindsight, it's a bust, in my mind. It doesn't come close to the real deal. Too short.

quote:

---

Why didnt the prosecution buy a pair of gloves that were the right size, show that they fit OJ, then have him try on the same gloves with latex gloves underneath...to show that its hard to put on a pair of gloves with latex gloves on underneath?

---

3 words as usual: Judge Lance Ito.

quote:

---

So they tried and he wouldn't allow it?


But he allowed "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"?

---

That's exactly what I'm saying. He let the defense team get away with anything they wanted and made the prosecutions life a living hell.

quote:

---

Why?

---

Have you watched the show? Sure, he's not responsible for Furhman getting on the stand, and he let a few jurors go due to some of the prosecutions discoveries, but Ito was a sexist a-hole who escalated the trial as much as he possibly could for his own fame, only for it to magnificently backfire. Especially with his wife being a highly ranked police officer who lied to get her husband on the trial, he's the last judge who should have presided over this case.

quote:

---

Have you watched the show?

---

first 3 eps then stopped.

I don't know the legal system works...once it was evident he was carefree with the defense and hard as nails on the prosecution why wouldn't/couldn't his higher ups (I don't even know who that would be) say or do something?

Seems like his waffling would be a pretty major influence on the trial.

quote:

---

There's so much left out and not a lot of behind the scenes unknown events. In hindsight, it's a bust, in my mind. It doesn't come close to the real deal. Too short.

---

wow. I disagree. I went into this series not expecting much but I have been pleasantly surprise. I followed this case closely back in the day. Even read a few books on the case back in the 90's so I guess I got into a little more than the average viewer.

Having said that, I believe this series is one of the best written series I have seen in years. On top of that, I also believe it's one of the best acted series I have seen in years. Acting across the board. Right off the bat, Sarah Paulson, Sterling K. Brown and Courtney B. Vance deserve an Emmy. Nothing short of brilliant. I could list more.

I've seen it noted that a mistrial could've possibly resulted in a double jeopardy scenario with OJ walking free. Can anyone explain why that is? I would've thought it simply meant a new trial.

I'd say not 100% clear but:

quote:

---

The common law generally required that the previous trial must have ended in a judgment, of conviction or acquittal, but the constitutional rule is that jeopardy attaches much earlier, in jury trials when the jury is sworn, and in trials before a judge without a jury, when the first evidence is presented.67 Therefore, if after jeopardy attaches the trial is terminated for some reason, it may be that a second trial, even if the termination was erroneous, is barred.68 The reasons the Court has given for fixing the attach[p.1285]ment of jeopardy at a point prior to judgment and thus making some terminations of trials before judgment final insofar as the defendant is concerned is that a defendant has a “valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.”69 The reason the defendant’s right is so “valued” is that he has a legitimate interest in completing the trial “once and for all” and “conclud[ing] his confrontation with society,”70 so as to be spared the expense and ordeal of repeated trials, the anxiety and insecurity of having to live with the possibility of conviction, and the possibility that the prosecution may strengthen its case with each try as it learns more of the evidence and of the nature of the defense.71 These reasons both inform the determination when jeopardy attaches and the evaluation of the permissibility of retrial depending upon the reason for a trial’s premature termination.

---