What matters in OJ Simpson's new trial

Two wrongs don't make a right. They make two wrongs.

The trial of OJ Simpson for kidnapping is regarded by some as an opportunity to right an error. Those people who are convinced that OJ was guilty of killing his wife hope that he will now be locked up for good.

Three points seem worth making.

The first concerns the gap between white people and African Americans on the question of OJ's guilt:

A poll on the 10th anniversary of the killings indicated that 87 per cent of whites were convinced the black super-star was guilty of the double murder, while only 29 per cent of blacks thought so.

Reading Taylor Branch's book America in the King Years has helped me understand this gulf.

The political nature of American courts in the South and their abysmal racist treatment of black people in the not too distant past is bound to leave bitterness and distrust.

White Americans should be understanding about the way black people view the justice system even if they (correctly) passionately believe this distrust no longer justified.

Yet distrusting the justice system is not, or at least should not be, the same as believing OJ did not kill his wife.

Which brings me on to the second point - arguing that OJ is guilty and arguing that he should be found guilty are not the same thing. The court's job is not, strange as it may seem, to determine the truth. It is to apply the rules of justice.

The rules of evidence, for instance, are designed not simply to help determine guilt or innocence but to police the conduct of those who collect evidence.

Alan Dershowitz argues this point compellingly in his book on OJ - Reasonable Doubts. He makes the case that it was right to acquit the football player regardless of whether he did it.

Naturally this leads to a third point. What matters in the new trial is the evidence in that trial not any previous transgressions.

Comments

[Joe]

I haven't read the Dershowitz volume, but I do recall the DNA evidence was compelling. That is why so many people felt the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO]

This is a mighty poor column, Daniel Finklestein.

First, the only votes that count in trials are those of jury and judge.

It is a terrible confusion to keep bringing up public opinion with regard to verdicts. It undermines the system.

Almost as bad is quoting Alan Dershowitz in this matter. His book is utterly self-serving.

Dershowitz, on all matters of human rights and justice, is likely the most selective intellectual writing in the world.

[Paul]

Danny, these are three well-made and important points. Great post.

Just one thing: you write in a confident tone that black Americans' distrust of the justice system is no longer justified. How are you so sure of that? What do you base that on? It seems to me that maybe it's justified and maybe it isn't but that I certainly won't know until I have seen at least several extensive and rigorous studies supporting that claim. I have not seen at least several extensive and rigorous studies supporting that claim. Have you? Have you seen, indeed, any studies at all, even a narrow and unrigorous one?

I wouldn't be so sure that there isn't anymore race-based injustice in the US justice system. It might be that there isn't but I see no reason to be so certain of it.

[Kristin Linton]

How sad that Truth and Justice, in your opinion, have nothing to do with each other.

[Tim]

I think blacks have a right to still question the legal system considering how much lying is found to go on. I think white people should start questioning it more too.

[Marshall]

This article on it's final note hits the nail directly on the head. If you'll indulege an American Attorney for a moment: The only issue of any releveance in the trial is whether or not the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the current crime that he is accused of committing. The rules of evidence clearly prohibit the prosectution from even mentioning the earlier murder trial as he was acquitted. That may be rather silly in this case, and it is, as anyone who doesn't know about the earlier case has been living in a cave with Bin Laden, it's still an important point. Forget its a famous person for a moment. In general a person living in Colorado would have no reason to know about a murder trial in Los Angeles from over ten years ago. So if that person acquitted in LA is latter tried on totally unrelated criminal charges the jury would never hear about the first case. The purpose of which is to make sure we convict a person who actually committed the crime that they are accused of committing not because they are a "bad person." I am positive the Judge will instruct the jury that they can not take the other case into consideration at all in deciding the verdict in this case.

[TrevorH]

The DNA evidence, along with much other, was far as i can remember somewhat compromised. The faults in the lab the faults in collecting it and the faults in the custody of the evidence. Not to mention the racist cop.

"if the glove don't fit you gotta acquit"

I believe in the death penalty but I also agree with a fair trial

I am white.

[Dean]

The DNA evidence as presented was compelling... until the chief detective was asked if he had placed it there himself, and he took the 5th amendment.
It would have been a travesty to convict on the evidence presented. The prosecution even had a timeline up on a board, and for the time of the murders they had OJ down as "whereabouts unknown". Given that their job was to prove that he was at the crime scene, that in itself showed their total failure to do their job.