When OJ Simpson stands before the angel Gabriel today, he may have a challenging case on his hands if this heavenly judge is as skeptical as most Americans.
But decades ago he was rightly acquitted in an earthly court.
To the “armchair lawyers” who say 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 legal system, guilt is determined not by the subjective morality of the public, but by the objective presentation of evidence and the establishment of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
As a member of OJ’s defense team, I was able to convincingly argue that some of the evidence against him was fabricated by Los Angeles Police Department officers.
That doesn’t prove OJ was innocent. But it does clarify the reasoning behind the jury’s legitimate decision.
As OJ’s former attorney, it would obviously be unethical for me to reveal my personal views on his guilt or innocence.
To the armchair lawyers who say the verdict in the so-called Trial of the Century was a miscarriage of justice, I simply say: You don’t understand the law.
That doesn’t prove OJ was innocent. But it does clarify the reasoning behind the jury’s legitimate decision.
What I can say is that there was evidence of guilt, especially DNA evidence.
During the 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, with the former football star allegedly placed at the scene of the crime.
However, defense experts discovered that the blood was contaminated with the chemical Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).
EDTA is not present in the human body. It is an additive used in laboratories to prevent coagulation of blood samples. Its presence suggested that the blood had been applied to the sock after it was collected by police.
Furthermore, professional ‘splatter analysis’ revealed that the blood could have been poured onto the sock while it was lying flat, rather than being sprayed onto it while it was being worn.
It was arguable at the time that the bloody sock had been planted by police in a possible attempt to ‘frame’ OJ – and that revelation devastated the prosecution.
If OJ had been a regular black defendant who couldn’t afford an expensive defense team, he might have been sent to prison. That’s why I handle cases pro-bono – to ensure that my legal talents are shared equally between the poor and the rich.
It’s also why our defense team accepted a predominantly black jury — including nine black women — who were probably more willing than white people to believe that police would be so unscrupulous.
LAPD racism was a fact of life 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 the community and led to deadly and destructive riots. Of course, police misconduct was the jurors’ main concern.
The second most important piece of evidence in the trial was the blood-stained glove – allegedly found by LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman at OJ’s estate – which matched a glove found at Nicole Brown Simpson’s home.
That “evidence” was compromised by both the emergence of recordings of Fuhrman using racial slurs and, most importantly, by the prosecutor’s own blunders.
Under California law, prosecutor Marcia Clark could have required OJ to first try on the glove outside the presence of the jury. She could then have decided whether 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 with the chemical Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).
Under California law, prosecutor Marcia Clark could have required OJ to first try on the glove outside the presence of the jury. She could then have decided whether to present the evidence in open court. But in her arrogance she skipped this crucial step.
I was sitting next to the defense team table when OJ walked to the jury box and struggled to fit the glove over his hand, remarking, “It’s too small.”
Not only did that pivotal moment give the jury another reason to question the veracity of the evidence, but it also eliminated the need for OJ to take a stand in his defense.
He had addressed the jurors without being sworn and without any cross-examination. Why then would the defense subject him to interrogation?
In fact, the question of whether OJ should take the witness stand was a topic of deep division within our so-called “Dream Team,” which was previously a nightmare caused by internal conflict.
Legendary defense attorney F. Lee Bailey was adamant that OJ should testify, but I was just as steadfastly against it. After OJ struggled with the gloves, the matter was settled.
That decision was later upheld when OJ testified in his civil trial. He was soon found liable for the murders based on much the same evidence – albeit, of course, on a lower standard of proof.
But in 1995, the jurors heard the case as I described. So I would ask anyone who says the verdict was a miscarriage of justice: would they have convicted a man based on falsified evidence?
In law, the end does not justify the means.
Corrupt evidence doesn’t prove OJ was innocent, but it does explain how the jurors reached their decision.
This paradox may be difficult for some to accept, but it is entirely appropriate in a legal system that requires proper due process to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.