Customer Reviews

Lessons from the Trial: The People V. O.J. Simpson

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Professor Uelmen is doubly blessed. First, he has one of the finest legal minds in the country and, second, he writes in such a clear, cogent style that one need not be a lawyer to understand him. Despite knowing the outcome from the start, this book is a real page-turner. One cannot help but think that if the prosecution had a lawyer nearly as capable as Uelmen they might have won instead of the defense. But the best part of all is the insider's view: no other book on the trial comes close to explaining how the defense won a case that seemed at the outset to be unwinnable. Whether or not you agreed with the defense, this book demonstrates their superior lawyering.

Gerald F. Uelmen is a professor and former dean of the School of Law at Santa Clara University. He was part of O. J. Simpson's defense team from the beginning, and can speak with authority about this trial. The sixteen chapters contain the lessons that readers may learn. There is no index. You should be familiar with this case or have read some other books before reading this overview of a Trial of the Century. After the jury verdict there was an abundance of proposed solutions which were thoughtless and wrong (p.1). A knowledge of history would correct these errors for those "unhappy with the verdict" (p.3). These proposals have led California to intellectual, fiscal, and moral bankruptcy in the criminal system, which is weighted heavily in favor of the prosecution (p.4). Many innocents have been convicted because of mistaken identification, police perjury, or simple incompetence by a defense lawyer (p.5). The foolish call for reforms have occurred in the past (p.7). The first lesson from this trial was how the Corporate Media fooled the people and fueled this controversy (p.8). [Joe Bosco said the trial he witnessed was different from the trial broadcast by the media.]

The media blitz led by DA Garcetti affected public opinion. But this allowed the defense to bypass the grand jury and go to a preliminary hearings (p.23). The double-dealing of the prosecution's grand jury is described on page 25. Fuhrman and Vannatter "contradicted each other on many key points" (p.35). Page 39 tells of the effect of the exclusionary rule, and why judges won't do anything. Do judges lack "moral courage" (p.45)? The "narcissistic personality disorder" (p.47) is defined as "a grandiose sense of self-importance, a need for excessive admiration, and fantasies of unlimited power and brilliance". [Does this remind you of some of your managers?] Uelmen shows his wisdom on page 65, unlike the critics. The need for press interviews by defense lawyers is explained (pp.69-70).

Their concern about evidence tampering and forging is explained (p.72). California law allows a lawyer to protect his client from prejudicial publicity (p.75). The foolish actions of "knee-jerk" politicians is described on page 77. The "National Enquirer" is more honest than "TIME" (p.78). A juror's race is part of their life experience, which affects judgments (p.81). Uelmen explains the death penalty (pp.82-83), and why selecting jurors is very important (pp.88-89). Video recording of trials could be a good teaching tool, but television allows reporters to comment as if they knew what happened (p.94)! The bias of commentators is explained on page 95. They had no idea! Television helped to find witnesses (p.99). But TV is for entertainment, not justice (p.101).

The murders of Nicole and Ron had nothing to do with domestic violence, based on the evidence; it was smear tactics (p.103)! The problems with the blood evidence and its collections are on page 122. The prosecution delayed the defense's testing of the samples (pp.123-4). The flip-flop testimony about OJ's blood sample is on page 126. The Fuhrman tapes were "the most devastating evidence" to completely destroy the credibility of this police officer (p.129). Fuhrman had been extolled as a model officer. When the Prosecutors learned of these tapes, they tried to get a mistrial (p.145)! I think the original intent of the Fifth Amendment was to prevent torture by forcing a person to testify against himself (p.155). "Third degree" methods were still used in the early 20th century. The Prosecutors would do anything to convict (p.165). A defendant can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence only if no other conclusion is possible (p.167). Were the threats to Cochran meant to force him to accept guards (p.171)? The jury quickly said "not guilty", there was "something wrong" with the prosecution's case (p.180). Watching a trial on TV gives the illusion of actually being there (p.182). Uelmen explains the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial (p.195). [The example of Lizzie Borden shows flawed research (p.196).] A trial isn't a search for truth, but to have a vision of truth prevail 9p.199). Civil liberties in America are documented in the criminal courtrooms, where the Government infringes on the individual's rights for the weak and powerless (p.205). Chapter 16 summarizes the lessons from this trial.

Uelmen writes as few can, a legal professor and scholar who himself was part of defense team of this trial.

He provides healthy, worthy set of lessons to be taken from this experience. This is more vital than disputing the outcome, for it must be all about a legal system with the best chance for a true and fair outcome for all parties, including society.

Agree with the author that biggest lesson is that trials as this are flashpoints for what is really on culture's mind at the time, here race, decreasing attention spans and bias without basis, spousal abuse, etc.

Further, we learned that tv and courtroom don't mix well. That massive DNA data without certifiable collection/preservation. Uelmen also contends that this trial was an aberration of the real, normal trial system.

Well done, and fascinating, insightful read.

Wow! He's almost as smart as his son