O.J. Simpson’s death this week brought back lots of bad memories—I can’t think of a good one—and a lot of familiar spin and dubious exclamations. One disturbing moment it brought back into the spotlight was the moment above, when in 2016, the ESPN series “O.J.: Made in America” showed Carrie Bess, one of the Simpson jurors, stating that her jury voted to acquit O.J. not because the jury didn’t think he was guilty, but because they sought “payback” for the police beating of Rodney King.
The whole exchange after the interviewer asks, “Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?”
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: You do?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way?
Bess: Oh, probably 90% of them.
Interviewer: 90 %! Did you feel that way?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: That was payback.
Bess: Uh-huh.
Interviewer: Do you think that’s right?
And the ex-juror shrugs.
Nice.
Observations:
1. To be as charitable as I can be, this could be called an example of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but it was still the right thing. Believing a defendant is guilty isn’t enough to convict him. Being certain that defendant is guilty isn’t either. The jury needs to decide whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I watched the whole trial, and I was 100% convinced that O.J. was guilty—but the prosecution didn’t prove it. For that reason, the jury’s decision was correct, or, at least, defensible.
2. Juror Bess is frightening, walking, talking evidence of the persistent and destructive cultural pathogens in the black community. There is no logic or ethical system that makes what she says was the reasoning of 90% of the jury (90% of 12 is 10.8 jurors…) justifiable. Because a PCP-maddened black man resisted arrest and was subjected to excessive police force in trying to subdue him, a black celebrity millionaire should get away with murdering his ex-wife and a male friend because his victims were white. Brilliant. We must also surmise that the jury lacked any intelligent, reasonable member who could explain that this not only made no sense, but that it also represented a flagrant breach of the oath they took as jurors.
3. Her comments call into question the wisdom of the Supreme Court decision barring lawyers from striking clack jurors for their race alone.
4. Bess’s final shrug is the most infuriating part of the interview. She doesn’t know whether letting a double killer get away with murder out of some warped and attenuated sense of revenge is right or wrong? Either Bess and the other jurors lied during voir dire, the prosecution’s questions were incompetent (did they even ask about the Rodney King riots?), or L.A.’s jury pool was an indictment of the black community, its churches, and the educational system.
5. The second that irrelevant factor raised its deformed head in the jury deliberations, some juror, certainly the foreman, was obligated to go to the judge. Of course, Judge Ito should have called a mistrial several times earlier, but a jury that is thinking like Bess claims it was is tainted and beyond rescue.
Ethics Alarms 
“She doesn’t know whether letting a double killer get away with murder out of some warped and attenuated sense of revenge is right or wrong?”
Unfortunately, it’s possible that she genuinely didn’t know if it was right or wrong. I’m going to go a step further here and argue that she just didn’t care.
She went in with an agenda. Nothing was going to stop her and the nine other jurors from making sure a black man got off on a murder charge. That 90% is a frightening look at what an uneducated, unethical majority can do.
When municipal governments are quick to give multi million dollar verdicts when a suspect dies or is severely injured during a police encounter and no one in authority has the cajones to tell the community to pound sand when the suspect resists or willingly fails to follow instructions this is the natural result.
The black community is wedded to its “facts” that the police are a danger because no leader is willing to risk their ire or that the police as a bogeyman serves a political purpose.
Conversely, the blue line which covers for cops with Napoleon complexes reinforces negative stereotypes held by the black community.
I still think there is reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty. The fact that they had provably racist cops, broken chains of custody on the evidence, and similar stuff did not help.
I’m nowhere near fully informed on the issue. I was still 17 and in High school at the time, and I could be misrembering what details I was aware of at the time.
I found the <a href=”https://www.businessinsider.in/law-order/evidence-collected-by-a-private-investigator-suggests-that-oj-simpsons-son-was-the-real-killer/slidelist/35434879.cms#slideid=35434932“>theory that OJ’s son Jason did it</a> interesting. But I’m assuming there are counter arguments that i haven’t looked into at all.
Ok, so manually inserting html links no longer works on WordPress. I had forgotten that they now had a tool bar for doing it… sorry.
As Yogi said ” Its deja vu allover again!”
Is this not repeating itself today withthe various Trump Trials. Decions based on ideology and revenge.
Wait. Rodney King settled for $3,800,000. How is acquitting Simpson a payback?
jvb
John, John, John. It was a pittance. The current bidding for reparations upstate from LA in San Francisco is five million pe. (Of course, I’m sure 3.8 million 1994 dollars are worth well over five million Biden bucks today. But of course, I’m sure Rodney’s settlement was expertly invested and is now valued at over twenty million.)
The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.
T.S. Eliot
Anyways… I was relatively freshly out of law school during the OJ trial and was very interested in watching the trial. It was a hard reality to learn that nothing that happened in the trial actually mattered.
There are lots of times I regret not going into criminal prosecution or defense work, Todd. It’s just a game. It looks like great fun. Win or lose, you get paid. No one ever gets sued for malpractice. You just go have a drink and go home. There’s a new case tomorrow. You win some and you lose some. Shrug.
Dersh signs in: ‘OJ was framed!’: ‘Dream Team’ lawyer ALAN DERSHOWITZ’s shocking rebuke to those who say Simpson’s acquittal was a miscarriage of justice – and why he still believes the jury made the RIGHT decision | Daily Mail Online
An Apology:
Full disclosure: I did not only not watch the trial, I actively avoided it.
I was studying philosophy at the time and spent a good bit of that time prepping for law school.
My dad, by contrast, had just retired and spent days upon days watching the spectacle.
I did not want to get sucked into that.
As a general practice lawyer whose practice includes criminal defense (I was asked a few days ago how I could practice in a variety of areas and I finally was honest enough to admit that stupidity played a factor), I have had to contemplate the “Ultimate Question.”
The Ultimate Question varies by profession, and some professions may not have one.
I once asked a doctor if he had ever had someone die on the table. I think he said yes. He was uncomfortable with the question, perhaps as much as I should have been asking it.
The Ultimate Question for lawyers, particularly criminal defense lawyers, is: how do you defend someone you know is guilty?
Dirty Secret Number One for Criminal Defense Lawyers: All of our clients are innocent.
Dirty Secret Number Two for Criminal Defense Lawyers: All of our clients are guilty.
Dirty Secret Number Three for Criminal Defense Lawyers: it does not matter if the client is guilty or not.
People are vindictive.
People are vengeful.
People will enact cruel vengeance for real or perceived injuries.
Placing criminal prosecution in the hands of the State serves a noble purpose of taking emotion out of the criminal system.
Unfortunately, prosecutors are flawed individuals; the political status of prosecutors does nothing to improve their performance of their legal duties.
But, when the full force of the STATE is aligned against the individual to deprive that individual of his life or liberty, the playing field looks fundamentally unfair.
The jury is, perhaps ironically, the last safeguard against government oppression. if the State wants to imprison or kill an individual for a crime, it has to convince a bunch of random individuals (who would not be a part of the traditional lynch mob, but still typically vengeful people) to punish some other random individual.
The juror is the last defense against the oppression of the State, even though those same jurors would make up the traditional lynch mob (juries are generally inclined to find guilt, for any number of reasons).
Jurors may be stupid, but, for good or ill, that stupidity serves a purpose. The jury system is fairly unique in human legal systems. Stupid jurors are probably no more likely to convict the guilty, and while they may be more likely to convict the innocent, but they are not beholden to the State.
That, above all else, is their virtue.
Having watched little or nothing of the trial, I got the distinct impression that OJ was guilty (I distinctly remember the morning I was driving in to work and they announced that Nicole had been murdered and that he was being sought for questioning (he would have been an obvious suspect); I imagined that he had nothing to do with it and that he simply needed to explain that).
But, to find him guilty, the burden on the State was to convince 12 Angry Men that he was guilty. Revenge or not (and is anyone surprised by this juror’s revelation?), the jury is there to make sure that the State does not overstep its bounds. Revenge or not, Rodney King exposed the prejudice in the LAPD. Rodney King went far beyond George Floyd. The State of California forfeited any presumption of fairness or justice. The jury was completely justified in telling the State that injustice will not be condoned.
OJ murdered two people. He should have been convicted. The State lost its case because 12 individuals were convinced that the State of California was not trustworthy.
Good.
If you were fair, OJ would have been convicted.
Do better next time.
-Jut