🚀 go-pugleaf

malloy@cris.com (Sean Malloy) writes:

>So we should not _bother_ examining what we do in order to determine
>what mistakes we have made so that we can _fix_ them in future
>situations? 

Well Sean, it looks like we are finally in agreement on an issue...I think.

Rehashing whether OJ did it or not is stupid.  However, looking at the 
system's weaknesses, without regard to OJ's guilt or innocence makes sense.  
We stomped the shit outta Sadam, but we still should have looked at why some 
of his scuds made the trip, etc.

The LA DA's presentation of the case was incompetent.  NO not because they
lost, but their methodology.  I could fill pages with point by point details,
but this isn't the place. So let me just offer an overall concept and  
a few observations.

They didn't do what defense lawyers have to do most of the time...overcome
jury bias.  Most of the time jurors are biased against the defendant. They
believe that the defendant is guilty before the case starts, or at best
they are neutral.  They seldom are where the law says they should 
be...presuming the defendant innocent. Defense lawyers know this and act
accordingly.  

In this case...Surprise...  The jury was actually predisposed to believing OJ
was innocent.  Yet, the prosecution went on to prosecute the case the way
it usually does without much regard for bias.  They should have prosecuted 
the case the way the defense usually defends as to the bias issue.  Likewise, 
in the Rodney King-Simi Valley trial.   

OK, to be fair, they did try.  They got the spousal abuse evidence in, the 
911 tapes, etc. Darden made mention in his closing about public persona vs 
private persona.  But such token efforts may be ok when the jury has its 
typical bias against the defendant...but it won't even come close when the 
bias is toward the other side.  For examples, in closings, we heard the "race 
card", but there was no "class" card being played by the prosecution.  
The prosecution rather than relying on vouching, should have moved the race 
issue into a class issue.

I know, bias should have nothing to do with it, the jury should only be made
up of vulcans who only use logic, blah, blah. But that wasn't who was on the
jury and the prosecution had a duty to deal with it effectively...they didn't.

Bias aside, and regarding the presentation of the evidence...

You can see why Alameda County DA's office has a nation wide reputation  
for being an excellent prosecutor's office.  Alameda Co loaned Rock Harmon 
to the OJ prosecution team. He is one of the most experienced 
prosecutors in the US regarding DNA.  After it was over, did he make lame 
excuses like Clark, Darden, and Garcetti?...the jury was biased, WHINE! SOB! 
They were black, WHINE! SOB! SOB! OJ is guilty SOB! SOB! This is unjust 
BOO HOO! BOO HOO!

Hell no!  Harmon said: that the defense was like a "buzzsaw".  He didn't like
them or what they stood for...but they were great trial lawyers. They came up
with defenses to the physical evidence never seen before.  They rewrote the
book on presenting and challenging DNA evidence.  He's going to make sure 
law enforcement agencies in Alameda CO get advised how to change methods of 
collecting, analyzing and presenting such evidence.... See the difference?  

He didn't come up with excuses or bullshit about changing the rules. 
If the LA prosecutors would admit they got their asses whipped fair and 
square...I'd respect them...more importantly I'd take comfort in knowing
my governmental officials seek to improve themselves...instead of advocating
taking away liberties to compensate for their incompetence.  

Whether OJ did it or not.... the prosecution did a piss poor performance. 



Ciao!
Ciccio