As Canadians, we tend to have some knowledge & a smidgen of understanding of U.S. society. Some of us (not me especially) have a fair bit of knowledge about American entertainment & sports celebs. I was too busy in my worklife at the time (1995) of the first O.J. trial to follow what was being broadcast on TV news about it. (I guess I had little interest.)
In subsequent years, I did wonder how a later (1997?) civil trial found O.J. responsible for the deaths of Nicole & Goldman. Yes, I understand the principle of "preponderance of evidence". But strangely, while it's always been easy to find internet pages about the original, criminal trial, there's very little of any depth at all about the damning evidence that led to his conviction in the civil suit.
Something about O.J's lack of an alibi for the day/time of the murders, something about his footprints in the blood at the scene... What was the "preponderance"? Just no thorough explanation, no complete details that I ever found. Perhaps most of the public was simply no longer interested, so there was little incentive for journalists or legal experts to post much about the civil trial.
But I find it strange, because the disparity of the two O.J. trials of the '90s must have struck some Americans as at least ironic, and maybe mind-boggling. ??
It wasn't just the "preponderance" issue that convicted him in the civil trial.
It was politics - the politics of Los Angeles. I will attempt to explain.
Legally speaking, defendants are supposed to be judged by a "jury of their peers". Many argued that one of the first things flawed about the criminal trial was that the jury members were selected mostly depending their racial background and their ability to endure so many days away from work, but Simpson's true peers are and were the wealthy of the region, most of whom, at the time, were White.
Simpson was a college grad, went to USC, and had been wealthy even as a young man. Can we say that about all the jurors for the criminal trial? No.
One impetus to get the civil trial going was to have him judged by his actual neighbors: wealthy, college educated people who also lived in the wealthiest parts of town, i.e. Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Westwood, etc. regardless of the color of their skin.
The K-12 educational system that dominates the majority of the region is not the best in the nation, no doubt about that, so many people said maybe some of the jurors in the first trial simply didn't understand DNA evidence and the science of probability. That is completely possible!!! There is much social promotion that happens in L.A. high schools, many high school grads graduating without actually having achieved mastery of high school science or math, so maybe they just didn't understand the evidence but were too embarrassed to say that?
Equally important is that the LAPD, dominated by White officers all through the last century until the Rodney King Riots (1992), had not been successful in establishing a good relationship with the Black community in L.A. The LAPD was in the process of changing in the early 1990s, but change of a behemoth organization, with officers protected by a powerful union, happens slowly, takes decades, so 1992 was still fresh in jurors' minds.
That's what I mean by politics. Choosing the race of jury members over their education levels and incomes. That's politics.
The civil trial was politics too - completely different jury members, completely different courthouse.
Different juries see the same evidence differently.
It did help during the civil trial that the prosecution matched a bloody footprint at Nicole's home to a unique, expensive pair of shoes Simpson owned, and they found a video clip of him wearing those shoes from an old NFL commentary video. But even that was scientific evidence.
Even if the shoe evidence had been found in time for the criminal trial, some jurors might have called that planted evidence too.
Gotta have a jury that understands just how rich the defendant was. Many poor and middle class folks do not
truly understand how the wealthy live and all the privileges they get to enjoy that the middle class will never see.
Example: the well-off jurors in the civil trial - they all know how the LAPD might tend to cut a wealthy, famous member of their community a big break even after he has beaten his wife up a few times. They all understand how wealth insulates them from the harsh realties of facing the legal consequences for beating your wife
because they enjoy that wealth privilege too!
They also understand how, when you are rich, a defendant can afford 4 or 5 of the top lawyers in THE NATION. National search for the best defense lawyers and he got them. What middle class or poor juror can afford that, even in a lifetime?! Impossible.
This man was not Rodney King. Same race as King,
but completely different life experiences. But the criminal jury just didn't see it that way. They knew what they knew, which is that the LAPD had a nasty history of being horrid to many people of color and the poor for many years, and they judged the case based on their life experiences.
If jurors don't understand the science but are too embarrassed to say that, if they are also thinking about how their communities will judge THEM if they send a "brother" to prison with the whole world watching the trial, they will make up an interpretation of the evidence that they themselves can understand, and reach a decision that keeps them safe and well-esteemed in
their communities.
They don't care if Beverly Hills is angry at them. They don't LIVE there. They have to go back home to Compton, or South L.A., or East L.A. or Reseda and tell their friends and neighbors they protected "one of their own" from the allegedly corrupt and racist LAPD.
I hope that makes a little sense.
