How stupid was the prosecution, the jury (especially the jury), and the judge???????
2006-12-03 09:32:27 · 17 answers · asked by Best DJ 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I think all of California's juries in big trials have been idiots since the Rodney King case. Back in 1992 (I think that was the year), the L.A. Riots were caused by the jury's decision to let the cops that beat up Rodney King go free (the cops were caught on film--what more evidence did they need?!?!?). Then there was O.J. in 1994. He got off free. Why? So stupid!!! Then we had Michael Jackson's trial not too long ago and he got off free. I'm sorry, but I don't care how good of a singer you are, or what skin color you are--you do not go to bed with the kids of strangers!
2006-12-03 09:41:02 · answer #1 · answered by Zippy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not know if they were the stupidest but they got a dream jury for OJ for sure!
2006-12-03 09:34:21 · answer #2 · answered by tigerlily_catmom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't say the jury was dumb. It's all about who makes the best argument. OJ Simpson got one of the best lawyers money could buy, who was able to make a convincing argument for his innocence. Sometimes it's more about the argument than it is about how obvious guilt may be.
2006-12-03 09:36:45 · answer #3 · answered by Joy M 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, how stupid might want to they be? i became a touch youthful in the course of the trial so i did not truly comprehend something about information, and so on. After studying extra about the trial I even do not comprehend how this guy did not get got here upon responsible. perchance the jury became paid a huge quantity of money to locate him possibility free.
2016-11-30 02:35:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that some of the jurors were concerned that they would set off another riot if OJ Simpson was found guilty. But that glove sure messed up the prosecution. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit".
2006-12-03 09:37:08 · answer #5 · answered by jpbofohio 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The people were not stupid, but the prosecution took every opportunity to give the trial away
2006-12-03 09:38:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ok, they had to vote him innocent because the prosecution f*cked up the case big time, so even though everyone knew he was guilty, they had no proof.
It had NOTHING, let me repeat, NOTHING to do with Rodney King. It had everything to do with the prosecuter failing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what everyone already knew.
2006-12-03 09:39:01 · answer #7 · answered by legallyblond2day 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wasn't aware the Hilton sisters and Britney spears was on the jury
2006-12-03 09:35:44 · answer #8 · answered by Charisma 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't just them. It was the court's fault that they allowed the press to video it. Maybe if the trial hadn't been played out in the media, the results would have been different.
2006-12-03 09:36:34 · answer #9 · answered by quatrapiller 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They basically had to vote him innocent, because of all the riots that had happened with Rodney King! Everyone knows Simpson is a guilty douchebag!
2006-12-03 09:34:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋