WAS it bought? Would a poor unemployed black man=20 have received the same verdict? Was this a triumph=20 of lawyers over justice? The questions in the wake=20 of the “not guilty” verdict in the OJ Simpson trial=20 are unending.=20
Commentators who believe the trial was hijacked by=20 the 17 lawyers on the Simpson defence team will=20 have a field day. The double murder of Simpson’s=20 estranged wife and one of her male friends did=20 become a sideshow compared to the racism of the Los=20 Angeles police exposed by Simpson’s defence team.=20 The racism revealed was ugly, unacceptable and a=20 threat to civilised society. The jury may therefore=20 have accepted the invitation of Simpson’s lawyers=20 to place such racism above the killings they were=20 called to address. If so, they were wrong. Criminal=20 trials should not be turned into a referendum on=20 the behaviour of the police — even a police=20 service as racist as LA’s. =20
The jury, however, may have genuinely decided that=20 the case remained unproven. Ironically, the public=20 heard how some LA police officers would plant=20 evidence, torture suspects and beat up black=20 offenders, but most of this evidence was ruled=20 inadmissible and never put before the jury. =20
To most outside observers, the evidence presented=20 in court by the prosecution looked overwhelming.=20 Moreover, the 12 jury members are bound to be=20 condemned for the speed with which they reached=20 their decision: less than four hours after a trial=20 which lasted nine months, involved 1 100 pieces of=20 evidence, and 50 000 pages of transcript. =20
Yet if they had turned in a guilty verdict with=20 equal speed, they may have been congratulated for=20 cutting through the legal twaddle. Length of=20 deliberations should not be the criterion by which=20 jury verdicts are judged. There is a good case for=20 arguing that jury deliberations — like trials –=20 have become too long. =20
Even so, the suspicion remains that it was only the=20 breadth and depth of the Simpson legal team that=20 won the “not guilty” verdict. Juries are not=20 selected to solve social problems, but are there to=20 ensure the criminal justice system retains public=20 trust. This week’s decision will only further=20 undermine the system of justice in the US. Even=20 before the verdict, US justice had emerged in=20 tatters from this most-watched trial in the history=20 of criminal justice: the number of lawyers=20 involved, the length of time they spun it out, the=20 obfuscation, the trials within trials over=20 admissible evidence, the lack of judicial control,=20 media campaigns waged by lawyers, and the cost. The=20 whole world has been watching. It will not be=20 impressed. Television helped expose the system’s=20 faults, but generated its own: playing to the=20 camera. The Founding Fathers would be dismayed.=20