I know there was a lot of racial tension in the early 90's because of the riots and beating of R. King. Perhaps this tension and sensitivity is was ultimately save OJ....and a bit of luck.
2007-08-28 11:43:48 · 8 answers · asked by Yea Yea 4 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
Good point.
I know exactly what you are saying. I remember having that feeling about it.
It's a funny thing. I know a place where there is some sort of museum/dedication to the Legacy of Johnny Cochrane. I laugh about it when I read about it.
-His Legacy is walking around in South Florida.
2007-08-28 11:52:56 · answer #1 · answered by mark623112 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not so much the riots, but what caused the riots, which was the LAPD officers being acquitted after beating Rodney King.
I have always thought OJ was acquitted because of poor prosecuting by the DA's office, poor handling of evidence, and having a jury that was eager to acquit him, no matter what the evidence against him, in order to get back at white people for some of the injustices done by our justice system against black people. I think the Rodney King trial was probably on the jurors' minds when they acquitted OJ after not even deliberating (they were only out for a couple of hours, and it takes that long to choose a foreperson and fill out the verdict forms, leaving no time for discussion of the evidence.)
2007-08-28 19:24:12 · answer #2 · answered by siamesedharma 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The level of prejudice REMAINS. The problem with this situation is that whether Rodney King or any minority has a problem, prejudiced folks don't learn. Yes, O. J. still would have been convicted. This is my take on it all and this comes from the scriptures - What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? - Romans 8:31. The Lord daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. - Psalm 68:19. Peace and God Bless.
2007-08-28 18:57:12 · answer #3 · answered by In God We Trust 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
O.J.'s case fell to the side due to Judge Ito allowing the defense to persecute the prosecutors office, chastising them vehemently and allowing the defense to break every rule and ethical bond a court has ever made. The criminologist's were on trial, not O.J. he smiled at the way judge Ito let the defense run over the D.A.'s office.
The detectives were on trial, maybe the had issues years before but, why was it brought up at he trial. Sure Forman said some nasty things about Blacks in the proceeding years but, what did that have to do with this case.
This case was a shame on American justice and the American system.
2007-08-28 20:12:28 · answer #4 · answered by cowboydoc 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I doubt it. I think the main reason he wasn't convicted is that the evidence against him was rather weak, ie, circumstantial. Without an actual witness or substantial DNA evidence (not something that merely narrowed it down to a few thousand people) it is rare to get a conviction for murder unless there is very little press coverage and the person charged is too poor to afford a competent lawyer.
2007-08-28 20:07:26 · answer #5 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I honestly dont think it would have mattered. OJ had the money to hire a good denfense attorney and there were so many holes in the whole thing that I dont think they could have gotten a convition
2007-08-28 21:22:11 · answer #6 · answered by fresh_horses_7 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No doubt. Everyone witnessed the race card being played in the court room. Plus he had a very biased jury who never did hear all the evidence.
2007-08-28 18:54:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's possible
2007-08-28 18:51:10 · answer #8 · answered by Sali 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋