OJ trial Payback, justice or both?
Ian Brockwell
December 08, 2008
As O.J. Simpson was sentenced to a minimum of 9 years and a maximum of 33 years in prison, many were no doubt thinking that "justice" had finally caught up with him.
In October 1995, against incredible odds, a jury found Simpson not guilty of the double murder of Nicole Brown Simpson (Simpson's ex-wife) and Ronald Goldman, who were stabbed to death outside Nicoleīs Brentwood town house.
Even though much of the evidence pointed to Simpsonīs guilt, many believe the case fell apart when he was asked by the prosecution to try on a pair of gloves that he allegedly wore during the killings. With outstretched fingers OJ attempted to put the gloves on, but claimed they were "too tight"
Simpsonīs attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. urged jurors to deliver a verdict that "talks about justice in America." Of the gloves, he said, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
On February 10, 1997 a civil jury orders Simpson to pay $33.5 million to relatives of Nicole Brown Simpson and Goldman, following wrongful-death suits filed by the families of the victims.
A jury again acquits Simpson on December 4, 2000 after he was involved in an altercation with a driver in a Miami suburb.
Exactly one year later Federal authorities and Florida police raid Simpson's Miami-area home as part of a probe into a drug ring. No charges were filed.
Which brings us to the latest trial and a court room that had no resemblance to the "show" that was witnessed in 1995.
This time there was no doubt that Simpson was guilty and he even admitted his involement, but was the trial as fair as it could have been?
I am not trying to defend Simpson, I am one of those who suspect he may have got away with murder 13 years ago, but did Judge Jackie Glass show some bias in her handling of the case?
Before sentencing Simpson she was quoted as saying "Earlier in this case, at a bail hearing, I said to Mr. Simpson I didn't know if he was arrogant, ignorant or both. During the trial and through this proceeding I got the answer, and it was both"
Although she claims that the court case was not "payback", some may question her comment to potential jurors when she said "If you are here thinking you are going to punish Mr. Simpson for what happened in Los Angeles in 1995, this is not the case for you." Would it not have been more correct to point out that any crimes Mr. Simpson has been accused of in the past should not cloud their judgment?
In another comment to Simpson (for violating the terms of his bail), Glass said "I don't know Mr. Simpson what the heck you were thinking - or maybe that's the problem - you weren't."
It seems very obvious from the comments that Glass has "personal issues" with Simpson, and this is perhaps reflected in the sentence (which seems more appropriate for a murderer).
Maybe, if O.J. Simpson really did kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, we could say that justice has finally caught up with him, but what if Judge Glass lets her "personal" feelings (and anger) interfere with other cases in the future?
We should remember that Simpson has made an appeal and this will take place next year. Perhaps his legal team will also claim the Judge was "biased" in her decision and influenced the jury with her comments? If an appeal court were to support such a claim, Simpson could receive a dramatically reduced sentence as a result.
Perhaps, while studying the Simpson case, we should take a closer look at Judge Jackie Glass and ask ourselves whether a judge like this can provide a fair sentence for ALL that come before her. The public are entitled to their opinions, but a judge can not bring these into the court room.
In October 1995, against incredible odds, a jury found Simpson not guilty of the double murder of Nicole Brown Simpson (Simpson's ex-wife) and Ronald Goldman, who were stabbed to death outside Nicoleīs Brentwood town house.
Even though much of the evidence pointed to Simpsonīs guilt, many believe the case fell apart when he was asked by the prosecution to try on a pair of gloves that he allegedly wore during the killings. With outstretched fingers OJ attempted to put the gloves on, but claimed they were "too tight" Simpsonīs attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. urged jurors to deliver a verdict that "talks about justice in America." Of the gloves, he said, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
On February 10, 1997 a civil jury orders Simpson to pay $33.5 million to relatives of Nicole Brown Simpson and Goldman, following wrongful-death suits filed by the families of the victims.
A jury again acquits Simpson on December 4, 2000 after he was involved in an altercation with a driver in a Miami suburb.
Exactly one year later Federal authorities and Florida police raid Simpson's Miami-area home as part of a probe into a drug ring. No charges were filed.
Which brings us to the latest trial and a court room that had no resemblance to the "show" that was witnessed in 1995.
This time there was no doubt that Simpson was guilty and he even admitted his involement, but was the trial as fair as it could have been?
I am not trying to defend Simpson, I am one of those who suspect he may have got away with murder 13 years ago, but did Judge Jackie Glass show some bias in her handling of the case?
Before sentencing Simpson she was quoted as saying "Earlier in this case, at a bail hearing, I said to Mr. Simpson I didn't know if he was arrogant, ignorant or both. During the trial and through this proceeding I got the answer, and it was both"
Although she claims that the court case was not "payback", some may question her comment to potential jurors when she said "If you are here thinking you are going to punish Mr. Simpson for what happened in Los Angeles in 1995, this is not the case for you." Would it not have been more correct to point out that any crimes Mr. Simpson has been accused of in the past should not cloud their judgment?
In another comment to Simpson (for violating the terms of his bail), Glass said "I don't know Mr. Simpson what the heck you were thinking - or maybe that's the problem - you weren't."
It seems very obvious from the comments that Glass has "personal issues" with Simpson, and this is perhaps reflected in the sentence (which seems more appropriate for a murderer).
Maybe, if O.J. Simpson really did kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, we could say that justice has finally caught up with him, but what if Judge Glass lets her "personal" feelings (and anger) interfere with other cases in the future?
We should remember that Simpson has made an appeal and this will take place next year. Perhaps his legal team will also claim the Judge was "biased" in her decision and influenced the jury with her comments? If an appeal court were to support such a claim, Simpson could receive a dramatically reduced sentence as a result.
Perhaps, while studying the Simpson case, we should take a closer look at Judge Jackie Glass and ask ourselves whether a judge like this can provide a fair sentence for ALL that come before her. The public are entitled to their opinions, but a judge can not bring these into the court room.
Print
Email
