S01.E09: Manna From Heaven

[Mittengirl]

If other detectives/officers found so much evidence, why even put Fuhrman on the stand? What could he testify to, that the others could not, that was so crucial?

[Umbelina]

That's what Darden thought.  Probably because he did find the glove.  If that idiot Vanatter had had the lab guys collect that fingerprint, this might all be different, but he didn't.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Umbelina

[Margherita Erdman]

There are plenty of circumstances that allude to reasonable doubt.

I agree - LEGALLY there was reasonable doubt. Though anyone with half a brain and common sense knew/knows OJ did it.

It's not clear to me whether or not there was reasonable doubt to any legal standard. We are privy to all kinds of stuff that the jury was either not supposed to know or not legally allowed to consider. The standard and criteria for reasonable doubt are subject to wide interpretation and can be specifically defined for each case in the final jury instructions given by the judge just prior to deliberations (something I've always wondered about in this case and hope they might cover next week).

Ron was the victim of a brutal homicide, no more, no less. Sometimes people like to attach certain "attributes" to a murder victim, to help express their outrage. When my sister was murdered, folks talked about how "stupid" she was to remain with the man who eventually killed her. Sure, she made mistakes and bad decisions, but that doesn't justify being killed. Elevating a victim to sainthood or derision just isn't productive IMO, their loss of life is legitimate enough.

I'm so sorry for your family's loss, and for the victim blaming that must have made it even more difficult. I agree with you — it does no good to assign crime victims more or less importance by their perceived virtue, or lack of it. Proving the crime, being the victim, that's all that should matter.

Edited to clarify earlier statement about jury instructions on reasonable doubt.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Margherita Erdman

[hatchetgirl]

In a criminal case, reasonable doubt is "is there any doubt at all, even 1%, in this matter." I can see the jury having reasonable doubt. The screw ups on the prosecution side were practically endless. Gil Garcetti should have stepped up to the plate on such a high profile case, especially once the lead had the heart attack. I think if he'd not had the attack, it would have gone differently.

The case should not have been held in downtown. Furman should never have been put on the stand. The gloves should never have been tried on. Cochran did a great job of throwing magic dust around, that didn't have anything to do with the case but confuse and cause reasonable doubt. Marcia and Chris were out of their league. The defense had F. Lee Bailey for goodness sakes.

I watched a speech given by Marcia after and it was surprisingly good. She spoke about how the case ended up being glitz and glam and not about murder. Very true.

Contemp for attorneys would be hours or days in the court jail. It would be sort of what Paris Hilton had to do.

Edited March 30, 2016 by hatchetgirl

[Jade Foxx]

 

He was a creepy, but everything he alleged in the screenplay on the tapes was checked out, and he'd never been involved in anything resembling most of them.  He's a complete asshole, but he didn't plant any evidence.

 

Not for one second did I ever believe Furhman planted evidence. But the "karma" of it all, is that LAPD allowed this pathological, racist cop to remain on the force, and the department's cavalier attitude turned around and bit them in the ass at THE MOST public trial of the century. This quote may or may not apply, but revenge is a dish best served cold.

 

Let's not forget Furhman sued the department for "turning him into a bigot." GOOD GOD.

 

[Bryce Lynch]

Ito wasn't qualified to preside over traffic court.

Who cares if the tapes were of national concern? If they were relevant to the case, and an excellent argument could be made that they were, they should have been allowed as evidence. If not, they should have be released at the discretion of the "screenwriter".

Sickening how he allowed himself to be bullied and the jury held captive by the defense, but then threatened Darden and Clark for challenging him on his idiocy.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Bryce Lynch

[Jade Foxx]

 

Nicole. Ron. The victims. I'm so sick of this case being twisted into anything but those two.

 

CBG - welcome to the real world and the criminal justice system.

[Bryce Lynch]

Not for one second did I ever believe Furhman planted evidence. But the "karma" of it all, is that LAPD allowed this pathological, racist cop to remain on the force, and the department's cavalier attitude turned around and bit them in the ass at THE MOST public trial of the century. This quote may or may not apply, but revenge is a dish best served cold.

Let's not forget Furhman sued the department for "turning him into a bigot." GOOD GOD.

I doubt most of what Fuhrman described in the tapes actually happened, but I would be surprised if he never planted evidence or committed acts of brutality during his career.

[Margherita Erdman]

In a criminal case, reasonable doubt is "is there any doubt at all, even 1%, in this matter."

That's just not true. It's based on the "reasonable person" standard which is explicitly NOT a quantitative standard, and it is specifically intended to be different from the elimination of all doubt.

For example, here are the model jury instructions regarding reasonable doubt for criminal trials in the Ninth Circuit:

3.5 REASONABLE DOUBT—DEFINED

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.

If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty.

[Bryce Lynch]

In a criminal case, reasonable doubt is "is there any doubt at all, even 1%, in this matter." I can see the jury having reasonable doubt. The screw ups on the prosecution side were practically endless. Gil Garcetti should have stepped up to the plate on such a high profile case, especially once the lead had the heart attack. I think if he'd not had the attack, it would have gone differently.

The case should not have been held in downtown. Furman should never have been put on the stand. The gloves should never have been tried on. Cochran did a great job of throwing magic dust around, that didn't have anything to do with the case but confuse and cause reasonable doubt. Marcia and Chris were out of their league. The defense had F. Lee Bailey for goodness sakes.

I watched a speech given by Marcia after and it was surprisingly good. She spoke about how the case ended up being glitz and glam and not about murder. Very true.

Contemp for attorneys would be hours or days in the court jail. It would be sort of what Paris Hilton had to do.

I think the only key mistakes the prosecution made were:

1) The gloves

2) Thinking black female jurors would be friendly to the prosecution

3) Putting Fuhrman on the stand.

Their case was mostly undermined by an incompetent crime lab and crime scene investigator, a judge who completely lost control of his courtroom, a racist, idiot detective and the horrible reputation the LAPD had in the black community.

It also took an amazingly good and expensive defense team to get OJ off.

[Jade Foxx]

 

I doubt most of what Fuhrman described in the tapes actually happened, but I would be surprised if he never planted evidence or committed acts of brutality during his career.

 

I agree - I should have clarified I don't believe he planted evidence in OJ's case.

 

I DO believe he provided his brutality services in the black and brown communities of Los Angeles during the 80's and 90's, no doubt.

[txhorns79]

In a criminal case, reasonable doubt is "is there any doubt at all, even 1%, in this matter." I can see the jury having reasonable doubt. The screw ups on the prosecution side were practically endless.

 

That's not "reasonable doubt."  Under the "reasonable doubt" standard, you can still have doubts about aspects of the case, but if they have no real effect on whether you believe the defendant is guilty, you should still find him guilty.  For example, with this case, you can think the police did a poor job of gathering evidence and that Mark Furhman is not a good person, but if the defense has nothing beyond "it's a racist frame up," without offering any plausible evidence to show someone else actually committed the crime, you can still find Simpson guilty. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

It also took an amazingly good and expensive defense team to get OJ off.

 

I'll never buy into this one. Expensive, sure, but they weren't that great. The media just rolled over. Some of them had been "on" big cases (many of which they'd pleaded out, or lost, or settled), and F. Lee Bailey had a well-earned legend he had been coasting on (or weaving on, as the case may be) for many years. But a Dream Team? Feh. Nothing that happened in the case convinced me otherwise, although the DNA lawyers whored themselves out for money and publicity with some efficiency. I'm certainly not impressed by the inflammatory and fraudulent injection of race into the case. Any dope off the street could have done that...if it were allowed.

 

Their case was mostly undermined by an incompetent crime lab and crime scene investigator,

 

Well, here, the job was up to the prosecution to demonstrate that these errors the defense was megaphoning about were not all that consequential, and certainly not capable of transforming exculpatory evidence into incriminating evidence. I really don't think the errors committed here amounted to that much or were terribly unusual, considering the number of people involved and the volume of evidence to handle. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[BooBear]

I'll never buy into this one. Expensive, sure, but they weren't that great. The media just rolled over. Some of them had been "on" big cases (many of which they'd pleaded out, or lost, or settled), and F. Lee Bailey had a well-earned legend he had been coasting on (or weaving on, as the case may be) for many years. But a Dream Team? Feh.

 

Yeh, the biggest attorneys aren't big because they are good. They are big because they have learned to make people in the press and the courts like them and when you pay for a big attorney, you get all their contacts and sway. Each team member here had their section of the world bought and paid for and some overlapped.  You get a lawyer like this so Judge Ito will think twice before making rulings. You get a lawyer like this so when the day is over the press runs over to him or her to see what they have to say.

 

but if the defense has nothing beyond "it's a racist frame up," without offering any plausible evidence to show someone else actually committed the crime, you can still find Simpson guilty.

 

Yes I didn't think it was "reasonable doubt" basically for me the "its a racist frame up" never made sense because OJ wasn't "black" and assuming it was a frame up, almost every person involved seem to take no action not to get caught and Furman walked right into a perjury charge. The frame up had serious reasonable doubt.

[33kaitykaity]

I wonder what a mistrial would have done for the prosecution. 

I think it would've made all the difference in the world.  For one thing, the prosecution wouldn't be walking in there thinking they had a slam dunk case because of their quote/unquote physical evidence.  There's no way Marcia Clark lets five African American women onto that jury thinking they're women, they'll relate to Nicole rather than think that Nicole was a gold-digger who deserved what she got.  No Furhman, so it makes the race card that much harder for the defense to play.  There's no way Darden falls for the glove trap again.  On and on and on, a mistrial really would've been the manna from heaven, only for Darden and Clark.  

[Ina123]

In a criminal case, reasonable doubt is "is there any doubt at all, even 1%, in this matter." I can see the jury having reasonable doubt.

Nope. You can have some doubt about specific things. The doubt has to be "reasonable". Saying "any" doubt is just wrong. I've been a juror and Had a judge look right at me and explain it. No juror goes into deliberations without being told exactly what it means.

 

If you plead the 5th, you have to plead the fifth to ALL questions. You cannot pick and choose. That's why the question "did you plant evidence" was so hard for Furhman to answer. It was a catch 22. If he answered "no", he would have had to go back to all the other questions and answer, one of which would have been him admitting to a crime, perjury. That's exactly what "the 5th" is. Keeping yourself from admitting to a crime. He did the only thing he could do, which made it look like he was saying he planted evidence.

[Bryce Lynch]

That's not "reasonable doubt." Under the "reasonable doubt" standard, you can still have doubts about aspects of the case, but if they have no real effect on whether you believe the defendant is guilty, you should still find him guilty. For example, with this case, you can think the police did a poor job of gathering evidence and that Mark Furhman is not a good person, but if the defense has nothing beyond "it's a racist frame up," without offering any plausible evidence to show someone else actually committed the crime, you can still find Simpson guilty.

I think OJ did it and should have been found guilty, but despite OJ's promises, it is not the responsibility of the defense to "find the real killer". They only need to raise reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant committed the crime.

I don't think the doubt was enough to be reasonable doubt, but it was closer than a lot of people think. The Fuhrman tapes, combined with the mishandling of some evidence and the gloves seemingly not fitting did make the idea of a police frameup more than purely a wild fantasy.

I think the gritty details of the various pieces of evidence would more or less preclude a frame up, but from a broader perspective and without them remembering or fully understanding the individual bits of evidence, I could see how the jury saw it as reasonble doubt.

[jenrising]

The show is really portraying Cochran as a true crusader against police brutality, and not just an opportunist using the race card to get OJ off. The scene with his wife was touching.

 

That's the rub. He was both. I feel like the subtitle of this show should be: It's more complicated than you think. Because every part of this mess was. Except for the worst part, the actual murders. 

[VanillaBeanne]

In real life, the jury never saw Furhman pleading the fifth. That happened outside of their presence. The show has a few shots of the empty jury seats to cue us in. Ito played the excerpts to the jury to impeach Furhman's testimony, allowed three eyewitnesses to testify that they heard Fuhrman use the n word, and in ito's jury instructions, noted the jury was entitled to deem all testimony untruthful if they believed a witness lied about any portion of it.

That said, like Darden said in the episode, the jury probably heard about it during the conjugal visits that week. That testimony was that shocking. The optics of having a LAPD detective plead the fifth when asked if he had planted evidence were unbelievably bad, regardless of the legal implications.

Edited March 30, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[txhorns79]

I think OJ did it and should have been found guilty, but despite OJ's promises, it is not the responsibility of the defense to "find the real killer". They only need to raise reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant committed the crime.

 

I didn't suggest the defense had to "find the real killer."  I suggested that for reasonable doubt in a murder case, the defense needs to offer more that the suggestion their client was framed.  It's pretty risky to claim your client was framed, while offering no plausible alternative theory of the crime aside from "everyone was out to get OJ."  You have to essentially rely on the idea that the jury is going to be amped up over non-related issues (like race, celebrity, never ending sequestration), so they will run with your theory regardless of whether it makes any sense.      

[laurakaye]

Give Sterling Brown all the Emmy.  All of them.  Even the ones for choreography, set design and music.  Except Outstanding Actress, that can go to Sarah Paulson but the rest go to Brown.  He took all of my emotions and wiped the floor with them last night.

 

Off to read this thread and re-live it all over again.  I don't want it to be over next week, even though I know the outcome and the entire thing sickens me to the core. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by laurakaye

[lovinbob]

If you plead the 5th, you have to plead the fifth to ALL questions. You cannot pick and choose. That's why the question "did you plant evidence" was so hard for Furhman to answer. It was a catch 22. If he answered "no", he would have had to go back to all the other questions and answer, one of which would have been him admitting to a crime, perjury. That's exactly what "the 5th" is. Keeping yourself from admitting to a crime. He did the only thing he could do, which made it look like he was saying he planted evidence.

 

Agreed. But he ended up getting convicted for perjury anyway--which he had to have anticipated, right? So if he were interested in justice, and in helping the state prove his case, wouldn't it have made sense to answer those questions, incriminate himself on the perjury charge, and testify he hadn't planted evidence? I guess at that point his testimony was worthless anyway—who'd believe anything he said? 

That's the rub. He was both. I feel like the subtitle of this show should be: It's more complicated than you think. Because every part of this mess was. Except for the worst part, the actual murders. 

Yeah, such is the case with a lot of civil rights leaders. They get attention due to their perhaps outrageous behavior. And they end up raising awareness on the larger issues. Makes me think of Al Sharpton, who has been on the wrong side of more than one case, and whose behavior in some circumstances has been questionable if not criminal. Yet he speaks up for people whose rights have been trampled upon. 

[TattleTeeny]

Moving on, NL was hilarious with that faux southern accent appealing to the southern court. Even Johnnie was impressed.

 

Oh my goodness, Johnnie's half confused/half awestruck face in the background, haha!

[laurakaye]

What, if anything, happened to Judge Ito's wife for lying about knowing Mark Fuhrman?  That's a pretty freaking big omission on her part.

[smiley13]

Did the form ask if they knew anyone on the list, or if they had issues with anyone on the list? As a high ranking police officer, I would think she knew all of the officers involved.

[lovinbob]

As a white woman who has become deeply concerned about race issues during my adult life, I identify with the Marcia Clark character quite a bit, particularly with respect to her decisions related to Darden and Fuhrman. (I mean to differentiate between Marcia Clark the person, whom I can't say I know very well, and the character presented in this film.) I can appreciate her honest belief that the facts of the case, as she saw them, could win the day. And that a jury made up of people of good faith would look past their anger at the system and look objectively at the overwhelming evidence. She didn't know that Fuhrman would turn out to be a true villain, though she was apparently cautioned by her co-counsel. I don't think she set out to make Darden a token, but at least according to this film, that's how he ended up. She didn't use his knowledge and experience to help her case; she relied on her own, alone, which was a major downfall.

 

I can't tell if this was a failing that was appropriate for the time, reflecting conventional wisdom about race in 1995, or one that reflected her own beliefs, biases and privilege. Maybe it's both. I know that her mindset is one I can identify with and that I have come to understand differently in the last 10 years or so of my life. I am 25 or 30 years younger than Marcia, though, so I don't know if she should have known better, especially as someone involved in law enforcement in LA in the 1980s and 90s, or if this is the kind of lesson one learns the hard way, having failed spectacularly in this case. Considering that many people in positions of power and privilege still don't accept that the criminal justice system works differently for poor people and people of color, compared with rich people and white people, it isn't too surprising that Clark behaved this way.

[dubbel zout]

Moving on, NL was hilarious with that faux southern accent appealing to the southern court. Even Johnnie was impressed.

 

I don't know if Cochran was impressed so much as dismayed, but it was a nice irony to see Bailey in the NC court do a version of what Cochran was doing in L.A.

 

Gil Garcetti should have stepped up to the plate on such a high profile case

 

I don't think elected district attorneys typically try cases, do they? But if you mean he should have focused more on the case than his upcoming election, I totally agree.

Edited March 30, 2016 by dubbel zout

[DXD526]

The animosity directed at Fuhrman by everyone in the courtroom summed up in classic fashion by Bailey/Lane: "It's hard to be hated by both sides. It takes a man of certain character."

[wanderingstar]

Moving on, NL was hilarious with that faux southern accent appealing to the southern court. Even Johnnie was impressed.

 

Oh my goodness, Johnnie's half confused/half awestruck face in the background, haha!

 

Was that not the BEST! Courtney B. Vance just slays in this role. And yes, Nathan Lane has been tremendous as F. Lee Bailey. The writers have given him some wonderful dialogue, and he has delivered a stellar performance throughout the series.

 

Sterling K. Brown was also great in this episode. His chemistry with Sarah Paulson just crackles. And yes, I wanted Chris and Marcia to at least kiss when they were alone in the office. Frankly, though, even when they just look at each other in the midst of the court proceedings, it's hot!

Edited March 30, 2016 by Gillian Rosh

[drivethroo]

Apparently Peggy York never got in any trouble because of the Mark Fuhrman thing but she's no longer a police officer.  She and Ito are still together.

Edited March 30, 2016 by drivethroo

[LennieBriscoe]

Well, THAT was disturbing to hear. Good Lord. The irony? Fuhrman became a darned good true-crime writer, and didn't need to go this "sensationalist" nauseating route to impress (and successfully, heh) this dame.

Fuhrman found THE damning piece of evidence! Not something over anyone's head like DNA; not something missing like the shoes; not something fungible like the time-line; not something dismissible (apparently) like spousal abuse; not evidence taken away and kept in someone's car.

Moreover, Mark Fuhrman was a prosecutor's dream: A handsome-as-a-movie-star man; a dedicated detective; a confident and seemingly forthright witness.

But Marcia couldn't see the forest, while Chris Darden could. Alas, "You only wanted a Black face; you didn't want a Black voice."

Edited March 30, 2016 by LennieBriscoe

[Archery]

If you plead the 5th, you have to plead the fifth to ALL questions. You cannot pick and choose. That's why the question "did you plant evidence" was so hard for Furhman to answer. It was a catch 22. If he answered "no", he would have had to go back to all the other questions and answer, one of which would have been him admitting to a crime, perjury. That's exactly what "the 5th" is. Keeping yourself from admitting to a crime. He did the only thing he could do, which made it look like he was saying he planted evidence.

 

Well, there is some nuance there.  You have a right to refuse to answer questions when that answer might tend to incriminate you.  Not all questions will do so. If you get on the stand and invoke the 5th, there may be questions you are required to answer because those answers have no inculpatory tendencies.  For example, if Fuhrman had witnessed some other event relevant to the trial, and that evidence did not have any possibility of incriminating him, he would be required to respond to questions about it.  The jury is entitled to "every man's evidence," with the exception of evidence that falls under the privilege.  You are right, though, that had he answered, inadvertently, a question that otherwise would have been subject to the privilege, the defense's argument would be that he waived it.  That is why courts typically allow blanket invocation of the 5th for whole categories of questioning, and after a few times, a lawyer will ask if the witness intends to invoke for all questions on that topic. 

 

I think, on balance, Fuhrman's testimony would have been important to establish the chain of custody of the glove he found (or whatever it was), because after the guy testified that he took some evidence home in the trunk of his car, they were never going to get the defense to stipulate to the proper handling of anything.  They were doomed either way. 

[Ina123]

I think Fuhrman plea bargained for a couple of years probation and $200. His record was expunged a year after he came off probation. He had moved to Idaho and did his probation there.

As someone up thread said, he has become a really good writer. I've read a couple of his books.

[WordFreak]

Not much more I can say about this that hasn't already been said. I'll just add:

 

1. Emmys all around. Each week, I am thoroughly impressed by the acting on this show, and even actors I wasn't sold on in the beginning have grown on me, in particular Travolta and Schwimmer.

 

2. I'm sad that there's only one episode left. The show has flown by so quickly and I know I'll miss it.

 

I can't wait to see how this will all be wrapped up next week, but I know that seeing the verdict again will outrage me just as much as it did when I saw it originally.

[BananaRama]

I have to admit that I did start to laugh when they said Peggy reprimanded him for writing KKK on a Martin Luther King poster. Frankly, I am giggling now. Unbelievable.

I know! So not only does she reprimand him, but she reprimands him for doing something racist. Sometimes I feel like the producers/writers are making this stuff up just to entice the viewers.

[Ina123]

I think, on balance, Fuhrman's testimony would have been important to establish the chain of custody of the glove he found (or whatever it was), because after the guy testified that he took some evidence home in the trunk of his car, they were never going to get the defense to stipulate to the proper handling of anything.  They were doomed either way.

They were doomed from the first day that Cochran or Flea joined the team. I think it was one of them that made the big speech in the conference room that they were going to attack the handling of the investigation and evidence. Something like "Challenge everything! Challenge! Challenge! Challenge!" It was like a mob chant.

Second episode, maybe?

Edited March 30, 2016 by Ina123

[Ina123]

Yup. I've changed my opinion of Schwimmer's portrayal of RK. Once he stopped saying "Juice. Juice. Juice.", I noticed how good he was. Can't wait to see his jaw drop when the verdict is read.

 

The link to a review up thread didn't think much of  Travolta's scene in the elevator when he excoriated Johnnie. I thought it was great. The intensity was scary.

[Daisy]

I am curious why they didn't push for the mistrial. Darden said it best. They could NOT have Furmann, they could push not to have cameras (which was such a joke). they would move it somewhere else. I don't get why he pled the 5th on the last question though

This show is such a thinker, and it was well done. I really hope there's a season two and three. 

[psychoticstate]

Damn, this show. 

 

I felt so uncomfortable, even queasy, watching Cochran strut around like a rooster and gloat over the Fuhrman tapes.  The Goldmans' and Browns' pain was just palpable.  I cannot imagine how horrifying it must have been for them to sit in the courtroom and listen to this fucked up circus.  

 

Sterling K. Brown owned this episode.  His elevator explosion at Paulson at Clark was just phenomenal.  I couldn't help but cheer for him even though I felt terrible for Marcia too.  

 

Watching I couldn't help but wonder what might have happened if Marcia had pushed for a mistrial, which was certainly justified.  Hearing faux Ito declare that the tapes were of national concern made me burn the same way I recall hearing the real Ito make that statement.  Just unbelievable.  The tapes were of a concern to LAPD (or should have been) but on a national level?  And unless it could be proven that Fuhrman planted evidence in this case, or in others he worked on, the tapes had zero place in this particular courtroom.  Lord, the legal system completely failed Ron and Nicole.

 

I absolutely loved seeing John Travolta's reaction to the statement that the screenwriter didn't care about money.  It was subtle but absolutely hilarious.  I had to watch it twice. 

 

There had better be Emmys going out for just about everyone on this show.  It has been amazingly done and I'm going to miss it, as well as the thoughtful and active debate here.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

 

The People v. OJ Simpson Hits The Mark
American Crime Story takes storytelling risks; great acting pays them off (again).

[psychoticstate]

They had, on tape, white police officers beating the hell out of Rodney King. THAT was their Mark Fuhrman tape. Simi Valley jury had their evidence to look at; the OJ jury had theirs.

The prosecution bungled this case from the very beginning but we still blame the jury for being a bunch of idiots. When your star witness pleads the fifth on whether or not they planted evidence, there's a serious problem going on, and it's not with the jury.

 

I disagree with that statement that the prosecution bungled the case from the beginning.  Don't get me wrong, they made mistakes but I wouldn't say they bungled it up from go.  

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say the jury were idiots but I think they had their minds made up well before deliberations or even closing arguments.  They didn't want to convict, in my opinion, no matter what the evidence said.  And Ito enabled the defense to use racism in a way it should never have been used in this case because Ron and Nicole were not murdered because of racism, their skin color or anyone else's. 

 

I was under the perhaps wrong impression that if you Plead the Fifth to one question, you have to for everything. And if that isn't true, Cochran baited him by asking if he was going to Plead the Fifth to everything, Fuhrman says yes, and then -- per the show -- Cochran asks the planting evidence question. If Fuhrman doesn't plead the fifth, he's still a liar.

 

 

Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that you can selectively plead the fifth on any question you want. It's not an all or nothing deal. The idea of It being a right that you can only invoke pre-emptively just doesn't make any sense.

 

No, you cannot cherry pick what questions you want to plead the Fifth to.  It's an all or nothing.  If you plead the Fifth on one question, you must plead on all, no matter how innocent they are.  That's why Shapiro's suggestion to Cochran was, I hate to say, brilliant.  Get in the question about planting evidence because they knew he would have to plead the Fifth and not be able to deny it. .  

Edited March 30, 2016 by psychoticstate

[JakeyJokes]

The scenes of Shapiro worrying about riots and Cochran damn near inciting them ("Release the tapes!") made me think of a case in my city, where they never released the tapes of a young handcuffed man fatally shot by a police officer.

They just announced today that the cops won't be tried and I am praying my city doesn't end up on fire today.

This show has done a masterful job when showing how in some ways we have come so far in 20 years and in some ways we haven't.

[TOL]

Yup. I've changed my opinion of Schwimmer's portrayal of RK. Once he stopped saying "Juice. Juice. Juice.", I noticed how good he was. Can't wait to see his jaw drop when the verdict is read.

I agree. My heart sunk for DS with his performances in the earlier "Juice" episodes. He's been fabulous since the ep where he apologized to Kris K. His disgust with OJ and himself is evident.

Question: why couldn't Kardashian just walk away? Are you bound to stay with the defense so as not to give the impression that you don't believe him anymore?

[laurakaye]

 

I absolutely loved seeing John Travolta's reaction to the statement that the screenwriter didn't care about money.  It was subtle but absolutely hilarious.  I had to watch it twice. 

 

There had better be Emmys going out for just about everyone on this show.  It has been amazingly done and I'm going to miss it, as well as the thoughtful and active debate here.

I record the show and watch it the following morning.  It usually takes me a full hour or more (even zipping through commercials) to watch an entire episode because I rewind some of the more subtle facial expressions and mannerisms over and over.  They're just SO.  GOOD.

[Kromm]

Lord, that A Current Affair, wheeeeyung sound and the flying through blackness pyramid brought back bad memories. That show was so shitty even back then I knew it was garbage.

[starri]

I lived through the unrest surrounding the Eric Garner death, and there was a cop in Brooklyn convicted of manslaughter for which the DA is requesting no prison time.  This stuff REALLY hit close to home.  I almost wonder why I'm watching it, because it's so good.

 

For those of you bemoaning Gil Garcetti's putting his career first, he only won the second term by a few thousand votes, although the guy he was running against was possibly even more odious.

 

What was up with Ito and all the hourglasses?  Was that really a thing he had?

[psychoticstate]

Question: why couldn't Kardashian just walk away? Are you bound to stay with the defense so as not to give the impression that you don't believe him anymore?

 

 

It's not that Kardashian couldn't legally walk away from the defense - - he could.  All he had to do was file a pleading with the court saying he was withdrawing as Simpson's attorney.  I think he was more conflicted because this was his friend of 20 years.  And there was how it would look to the jury, who would surely notice that RK was no longer sitting at the defense table.  The public too would notice and it would be a not so subtle message that RK, like others, had dropped Simpson because he was guilty. 

[Kromm]

Ah. physical audio tapes and tape recorders. I remember those!

 

I wonder how hard the prop department had to work to find a bunch of those in working condition.

[dubbel zout]

I am curious why they didn't push for the mistrial.

When Clark and Darden were discussing it, she mentioned something about it could mean double jeopardy and OJ would walk. She also didn't think it would look good if the prosecution pushed for a mistrial.

[Kromm]

You know the same way that last episode made me appreciate the subtleties and less likely to be noticed and nominated acting of Nathan Lane, this one did the same for me with Kenneth Choi.  Kenneth Who? you may be asking. Exactly. He's so submerged into the role of Ito, and not a name many of us know, it's not surprising if you're thinking that.

 

It's tough because Ito did not come out of this case looking very good. But the past few episodes the show has engaged a lot of sympathy for Ito, and that's due a lot to the actor.

 

Kenneth Choi is a name we're even less likely to see nominated for anything than Nathan Lane. The people doing the flashy stuff on this show are going to be the ones rewarded.