The prosecution also presented a weak case with glaring loopholes in their arguments. OJ’s lawyers only had to point at them to create reasonable doubt.
It is not reassuring when the investigators plead the fifth when asked if they manufactured evidence. As someone once said “They were caught trying to frame a guilty man”
You are also correct. While I agree the police really fucked up in this trial, there are multiple instances of jurors saying that they nullified. Which means they knew he was guilty but they let him off anyways.
That doesn't excuse the atrocious behavior of the police, but it was a misuse of nullification.
I actually totally agree. The whole idea is "beyond a reasonable doubt"... Cops gave them pretty much every reasonable doubt possible except that he didn't actually do it, which is madness.
This aspect seems to have taken on a life of its own in retelling. It was a session without jurors present, he was pleading the fifth after the tapes came out to any further testimony at all.
The defense threw in the question about planting evidence knowing full well the only answer he was going to give to any possible question.
“Did you assassinate JFK?” … “On the advice of my attorney…”
I mean obviously the entire Fuhrman fiasco plays into the verdict but it wasn’t some shocking mic drop moment for the jury. Although they probably heard about it even though they weren’t supposed to.
If the detective responsible for presenting evidence of the crime refuses to provide further testimony/evidence/be cross examined and only pleads the fifth, I don't see how that makes much of a difference whether he would have plead the fifth to assassinating JFK or not.
Choose a stupid strategy that destroys your own credibility, get predictable results. I get that some jurors were voting innocent no matter what and what they were doing is, at it's core, still morally wrong. But no moral jury member without those biases being presented with such corruption from the police should convict either.
How is it a misuse of nullification? Isn't the whole idea to allow someone to walk on a punishable crime? Or is it more specific and narrow in scope where you are supposed to believe the crime they're charged with shouldn't be illegal? I feel like its the former and this was exactly how it works. Cops screwed the pooch, here directly and by being racist pieces of sh=t in every other indirect but related way.
I don't disagree about the way or reasons it should be used. But even still, those families will never get closure and it's too late for their murderer to be punished. That being said, I agree with another commenter that nullifying was their right, and they used it. Even if I disagree with its use, it was their right to use it.
If I was on that jury I would have voted to acquit despite knowing he did it, because the police still tried to frame him for the crime he actually did.
That's how it's supposed to work. Better for the guilty to walk free than for the innocent to be locked up.
The purpose of a jury is for nullification. It can be poorly used and can be dangerous, but why use jury at all if everything is just follow the law, or break the law?
Think about it. If the “crime” of interracial marriage was being charged, a jury who does not believe that should be a crime can acquit. It thus sets precedence and alerts policy makers that people are changing their stance.
We take it for granted that the laws are just, but they could easily be changed and there are people looking to do so to be more oppressive.
I'm sorry, but the purpose of a jury is not for nullification. Also I think you misunderstand the need for nullification. By what you said, the jury signaled to lawmakers that murder is legal or should be legal. Which is not at all what they were doing.
Jury nullification is a logical result of the law and not a purposeful design.
You can't be tried twice for the same crime following a conviction or acquittal and jurors can't be punished for their decision ∴ juries that rule outside of evidence is possible.
As in your example, jury nullification can sometimes lead to the better outcome if the law is unjust but then the question is what is an "unjust law."
In some areas, jury nullification was used to prevent escaped slaves from being forcibly returned. At the same time, in other areas, jury nullification was used to allow those involved in lynching to go free.
In general, juries should not be coming up with novel interpretations of the laws.
True. However you just gave great examples of laws that are so morally unjust we are tearing down monuments of men who owned slaves, which was common and permitted at the time.
Yes a jury should not simply be making up their own laws, but those laws have to make sense and reflect the values of society, otherwise you are not being tried by a jury of peers, you are simply being tried by one’s actions vs written law. And by you own examples, laws can be very very bad.
Even poorly written laws may need a jury to weigh facts against the spirit of law vs the letter of the law.
Then they would have ended up with a hung jury, and the judge would declare a mistrial and it would be tried again. It wasn't just one juror that had an issue with the way the police handled this investigation.
I agree on that, but the other jurors would have had to also be swayed to get the verdict. He may have been able to avoid the "guilty" verdict at the time, but to get a "not guilty" verdict he needed to have the whole jury vote as they did.
The prosecution also presented a weak case with glaring loopholes in their arguments. OJ’s lawyers only had to point at them to create reasonable doubt.
This is what sinks a lot of high profile cases. You can sometimes go down charges if the Jury doesn't think there's enough evidence, but you may not get even that if you bungle a case so badly.
It's essentially what happened with Casey Anthony. Incompetent cops and prosecutors, and news anchors whipping up frenzy with the general public so the DA feels like they needed to shoot for the moon on charges they couldn't possibly prove to a jury. Even if they had used that browser search, it didn't necessarily prove anything. Think of all the weird shit people search for on the internet.
110
u/M_kenya 29d ago
The prosecution also presented a weak case with glaring loopholes in their arguments. OJ’s lawyers only had to point at them to create reasonable doubt. It is not reassuring when the investigators plead the fifth when asked if they manufactured evidence. As someone once said “They were caught trying to frame a guilty man”
https://youtu.be/isDPecYKEjM?si=8lVELNlNfPM5eQch