This case has nothing to do with the killing of a living soul, rather it interfered with commerce as all courts ALL COURTS operate in commerce period, and when you destroy property you must answer the owners demand due to a breach of contract that was signed when the birth certificate was registered and sold to the IMF to be traded on the world market.Truly there are those who see and do not perceive.

Haha lovepeace! You’ll have to wait until I collect from that lawyer dude for my professional consult!

A jury is a moody animal and most times it seems hard to tell which side of the fence they will land on.The need to prove someone guilty beyond a shadow of doubt doesn’t seem to kick in until you get to the more sever crimes.I imagine there are few times when there is three witnesses who saw the crime committed and the police caught the accused leaving the scene with the weapon,so I believe the jurors have to make that leap of faith from BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT to the gut instinct of I BELIEVE HE/SHE DID IT.I believe if I were to see one of the jurors from the OJ case drive by,even at this time,I would throw an old shoe at them and as in many cases justice wasn’t served in that case,just the written law and a few jurors who were afraid to hold out and decided to just run with the herd.Far from a perfect system but I don’t see anything better coming down the road at this time.

Nuttin wrong with that. 

Now, that will be $300 for the hour that I spent in your service, ma’am. 

OK-thanks lovepeace. I’m just trying to understand all this….

No, they can’t lie. Not saying they don’t do it anyway, but it’s a violation of attorney ethics to lie.  They can present evidence to contradict the state’s case, and argue how the evidence supports their client’s position (ie, “I didn’t do it,” or “I wasn’t there,” or “the glove doesn’t fit,” whatever). It’s their job to present the evidence, and it’s the jury’s job to decide “the truth.” 

It doesn’t matter if they knew OJ did it or not. They’re job is not to judge him, but again, to make the prosecution prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution can’t do that, then they don’t get a conviction. That’s how it works. Kind of a checks and balances. 

If we hold defense attorneys accountable for bad guys getting off, nobody would want the job. Then the prosecution can convict his enemies any time he wants and nobody is there to protect our rights.  If you’re ever in a situation where you or someone you love ends up in trouble, you’ll learn to appreciate that aspect of the law. 

Not that you or your family would EVER be in that situation, of course. 

“And no, it’s not a crime for the defense to “help” a guilty defendant get off, as long as its done in a legal way.  They have the same responsiblity as the prosecution to not fabricate evidence and they’re not allowed to lie (hahahaha!).  Their job is to force the prosecution prove their case, which involves pointing out possibilities of reasonable doubt.”

So,they can lie,to defend their client?

Aren’t there some ethics involved? Suppose OJ admitted today to his lawyers that he was guilty…shouldn’t the lawyers be accountable to some point? Or maybe, he did admit he was guilty to them, and there wasn’t enough evidence? Seems to me,that you should try to get a punishment to fit the crime. Otherwise, wouldn’t you have lawyers walking around that are just as guilty,if not more so,than some of the people they represent?

Ok, keep in mind I’m speaking as a lawyer, not a human being (they’re not always the same thing, you know). 

Technically, if LE and the prosecution bring a good case, there should be no “loopholes” available for the defense to take advantage of.  A sharp defense attorney is going to jump on every hole the prosecution leaves like a pit bull. 

And no, it’s not a crime for the defense to “help” a guilty defendant get off, as long as its done in a legal way.  They have the same responsiblity as the prosecution to not fabricate evidence and they’re not allowed to lie (hahahaha!).  Their job is to force the prosecution prove their case, which involves pointing out possibilities of reasonable doubt.

In OJ, some of the cops were overzealous and some of the evidence wasn’t handled properly. Also, some of the cops were proven to have made racist statements, which probably made the jury suspicious.  Even though it’s pretty much accepted that he was “guilty,” some of these mistakes probably made the jury suspicious. 

See, some of us who insist on cops doing a good job and not over-doing it with the tasers, etc, are looking out for the greater good. Defendants will use stuff like that to their advantage and it sometimes messes up the whole case.

OK-on OJ-defense attorney’s have an obligation to uphold the law,right? If OJ was guilty,and he walked,because his attorneys got him off on some loop-holes, then are they not guilty of a crime? Should they not be serving a sentence right along with him? I would think that good attorneys would frown on that kind of behavior…Higher standards and all that…