If she is some subspecies of Liberal I guess I am too!

Where the issues are complicated or numerous, it is the job of the defense to find the stupidest people they can to sit on the jury. In this, OJ’s team was successful. That doesn’t mean that Darden et al failed, it just means that these were in an order within the jury pool that they couldn’t get rid of. It happens. Each councilor gets so many peremptory challenges and unlimited challenges for cause, but even peremptory challenges now have restrictions that limit the appearance of a peremptory challenge based on potential racial issues.

Having said all those snarky things, I’m not sure I could devise a better system.

“We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don’t know anything and can’t read” – Mark Twain

My point being that the OJ case was so sensational that I’m willing to bet the court had to search far and wide for people who didn’t know the facts of the case beforehand. The end result? Only 2 of the jurists held a college diploma and none of them regularly read newspapers (not counting tabloids, anyway).

It’s the job of defense counsel to pick a jury that will be pursuadable. That OJ ended up with a mostly black jury is evidence of the competence of his counsel, IMHO. Furthermore, the “set up” argument was effective because it was *effectively* presented by top-notch lawyers.

The OJ trial happened to coincide with an extended period that I wasn’t working due to a back injury. So, I had the luxery of watching most of the trial on TV. And I agreed with the Jury. Which was not that OJ was innocent… but rather that the prosecution hadn’t eliminated reasonable doubt. Case in point being the infamous glove not fitting OJ’s hand. I can’t think of a better example of the relative incompetence of the prosecution than insisting that OJ try the bloody glove on. From a strictly “Xs and Os” strategy point of view it was a monumentally stupid decision which served to reinforce the defense’s argument rather than the prosecution’s argument.

But OJ is just one example of the effect of wealth on the justice system. Michael Jackson would be another famous one and given time I could dig up many other examples involving wealthy people who aren’t/weren’t black. Like… Michael Jackson. But I digress… LOL

9 blacks, 1 Hispanic, 2 whites.

10 women, 2 men.

2 college graduates, 9 high school graduates, 1 with no diploma.

More from the website:

Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

It’s anyone’s guess as to who was influenced by what. However, as one who managed to watch most of the trail, there’s no doubt in my mind that he’s guilty. No reasonable person could conclude otherwise based on the evidence.

I agree about O.J. But I would add that in addition to being rich enough to buy a bunch of good lawyers, he was lucky enough to get a clown for a judge. Or was it just luck?

The reality is that citizens of wealth and power have access to a fundamentally different level of justice than those without wealth or power. Case in point: OJ Simpson. He wasn’t acquitted because he’s black. He was acquitted because he could afford top-notch legal counsel who easily outclassed the prosecution team.

Even outside of criminal law people of wealth and power have access to a fundamentally different level of access to the halls of power than do those without wealth or power.

I’m not saying that there’s anything inherently wrong with being wealthy or powerful (isn’t that redundant?). But we delude ourselves if we think that the law is *functionally* blind to that wealth and power.