Customer Reviews

Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

When the OJ verdict came out, my wife and I were on a West Coast road trip. When the innkeepers found out I was an attorney, they would invariably ask me what I thought about the verdict. I replied that OJ probably killed his ex-wife. But OJ went free because of the many mistakes the police and prosecution committed, including giving the glove to OJ. (Rule no. 1: never have a hostile witness conduct a demonstration. Ever. Even if you think the demonstration is fail-proof.)

This book confirms my hunches, which were certainly less informed than Dersh's. It also discusses all the different policies that go into our criminal justice system, in a language laypeople can understand.

After you read this book, you'll understand that "probably guilty" is not enough to convict. You'll also know that most people had more information than the jury, and that the jury had to base their verdict upon the evidence presented at trial, rather than all the facts and factoids floating around.

Ultimately, while the book may not convince you that (a) OJ didn't kill them (the book didn't try to that) or (b) OJ's guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it will provide you with a better understanding of the criminal system.

I don't know about you but I was totally engrossed when the OJ Simpson trial was on TV. So naturally when everyone from Johnnie Cochran to the man who bagged OJ's groceries the day of the murder starting writing a book about it, I started reading hoping to get some good evaluation of the case. As a student of history and political science I wanted to know what the people involved with the case thought. Of course almost every book is an opportunity for an ego trip, a defense of misguided actions, or a chance to rocket to the best seller list on the backs of history's most publicized criminal trial. No one actually spoke to anything valuable. And then there's Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz was retained as an appellate lawyer and for his expertise in constitutional law. When Robert Shapiro, skip his book by the way, retained him he asked if he would educate the public on the case. As a teacher Dershowitz couldn't refuse. And he's still teaching. The book answers questions that have been on everyone's mind since the trial. Just read the table of contents and you won't be able to put it down.

I watched a ridiculously large amount of the trial of the century and the associated talking heads. I was in utter disbelief when the jury acquitted O.J.

Since then I have carefully evaluated the evidence that the jury had to consider. I now believe that, although O.J. probably did the crime, the jury came out with the proper decision.

This book is excellent if you are interested in the trial or just want to know more about our judicial system. Professor Dershowitz clearly lays out the rules the jury had to operate under and isolates the information I had seen on television against what the jury was allowed to hear.

It seems to me that Dershowitz really had two literary objectives with this book:

1) To explain to the American public what it really means to have a burden of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt," and that this sometimes leads to unexpected results without there being a miscarriage of justice. In this respect, he succeeds masterfully - this is a must-read for anyone who feels moral outrage when seemingly guilty defendants are acquitted on "a technicality."

2) To persuade "thoughtful" readers that the OJ Simpson case was a good example of well-founded "reasonable doubt," that, in effect, the planted evidence story was plausible enough to sow reasonable doubt in the public's mind. I (somewhat uncharitably) suspect that Dershowitz of wanting to ingratiate himself with his public who resented the outcome of the criminal trial by casting the case in this light.

This seems to me an unnecessary rationalization of what really is Dershowitz's job as an advocate for his clients - it makes no difference whether OJ is guilty or not - he is entitled to a vigorous defense by the best lawyers he can find, and Dershowitz is perfectly within his right to accept and stick with an assignment as OJ's lawyer. I think that Dershowitz did fine until he included the hypothetical argument on appeal at the end. It was articulate and masterful, but served only to impress me that he's a great attorney and little else. I remain convinced that OJ got away with murder.

Now I understand! As the author puts it in a nutshell, "the cops were trying to frame a murderer."
I found this book by accident at a library sale. It is an amazing behind the scenes look at the Simpson Trial and how the cops and prosecutors faked, bungled, lied and lost the case! Not only is it a gripping read, but it is also a strong slap at the entire 'justice system.'
Even before the trial even began the case pretty much was lost as detectives and forensics members, among others, bungled the search, the evidence collection and interviews!
After the first few pages you'll be saying to yourself, "NOW I UNDERSTAND!"
This is a hell of a read and I have notes all over the margins, e.g, "Cops blow it, cops blow it again, my god another bungle," etc. The jury to its credit understood that the evidence had been faked, contaminated, detectives were lying to the judge, jury and even prosecutors, AND,
they ALL KNEW IT!
The importance of the jury charge, "beyond any doubt" is extremely double-edged and the jury was intelligent enough to realize almost immediately that the cops were lying and that the judge knew it.
Ignore those who dismiss this book because (1) They haven't read it. (2) If they read it, they didn't understand it. (3) Or, like lots of people, mistake a "not guilty" verdict as being the same as "he didn't do it!" It means, in this case, that the evidence, testimony and its presentation were so tainted by actions by cops, prosecutors, the district attorney and even the judge, that "beyond any doubt" was an impossible decision!

Who can forget the controversies surrounding the OJ Simpson murder trial. Alan Dershowitz, America's renowned civil liberties lawyer and Harvard Law School Professor, was a member of OJ Simpson's legal counsel. This is the single most important book about the intricacies of the case and the complexities and vexing issues confronting the criminal justice system as a whole. The tactics of prosecution and defense are eye-opening and as usual, Dershowtiz is not only a great teacher, his eloquent and compelling writing and readable style will hold you right to the end leaving you to reflect on the argument that regardless of Simpson's factual guilt or innocence, the jury's verdict of not guilty was the correct one within the framework of the existing, perhaps flawed, criminal justice system.

Harvard Professor (and Simpson defense attorney) Alan Dershowitz writes a compelling book about the O.J. Simpson trial. He insightfully challenges many popular conclusions about the trial. For example, if the jurors were blinded by race in the vote for acquittal, then why did one of the white jurors--who admitted being offended by Cochran's closing argument which used rhetoric about race--vote for acquittal. He also declares that the press portrayed events differently than what happened in the courtroom. For example, why did so many of the people inside the courtroom conclude that the gloves did not fit O.J. while major newspapers concluded that they did fit, albeit snugly.

Dershowitz also does not shy away from people's perceptions of criminal defense attorneys. He explains, "A criminal trial is anything but a pure search for the truth . . . [many times a defense attorney] responsibility is to try, by all fair and ethical means, to prevent the truth about their client's guilt from emerging." This book provides wonderful insights about the Simpson trial and the issues it raised such as the role of race in trials, whether police officers ever lie, and the obligations of a defense attorney. You may find yourself disagreeing with the author but will have a hard time articulating your reasons as well has he does.

This book is an intriguing read if you are a featherbrain. But it is just an appalling read for anyone else.

Dershowitz walks the gullible, dunces (I mean wide-eyed, intrigued readers) through a maze of "let's pretend we don't see the blood dripping from OJ's hand." After all, how do we know Fuhrman didn't sneak into Simpsons bedroom and plant the cut on Simpson's hand while he was sleeping.

Let's pretend "the bloody-size 13-Bruno Magli shoe print" is from a different big-footed, upscale, fashion-conscious murderer.

Lets pretend OJ was hitting golf balls (with his bloody hand), when the murders occurred, and that's why he was dripping blood droplets all over the place.

Or no, let's pretend Simpson was really sleeping (with his bloody hand) as he had told the limo driver, even though the limo driver testified he saw OJ simpson run across his lawn and enter his house wearinng a dark sweat suit just moments before he knocked on Simpson's door.

Let's pretend the victims blood (that was found in Simpson's truck) was really the result of contamination. You know, mix a little sand with Simpson's blood and, voila! you get the victim's blood to match. Yeah, that makes sense.

Yes, Dershowitz offers the reader a intriguing look at the possibilities. He uncovers aspects of the case that will leave the featherbrain reader pondering the evidence for years to come.

While watching the "trial of the Century", I kept feeling that the prosecution was truly botching its case. But, not being a lawyer, I was not quite sure my perceptions were accurate. When the verdict came in, I felt vindicated. I was for acquittal, although I am white, whatever that means. Reading Dershowitz' wonderful book gave me the Aha feeling almost every other page. And it made me almost regret that decision I took more than forty years ago to abandon the study of law and go for the social sciences. It is terrific to see a first-class legal mind at work. The book does not pretend to prove O.J.'s innocence, but it convincingly demonstrates that the jury arrived at the correct decision.His logic is impeccable and, as far as I am concerned, he accomplishes the task he set out for himself. A masterful intellectual performance. On the other hand, it is sad to see how prejudice and trial by the media could blind so many people and led them to ignore the fundamental idea of the rule of law: innocent until proven guilty, not to mention where the burden of proof lies. It is also sad to see how American police officers could try to frame somebody simply because of the color of his skin. History will eventual tell, but Dershowitz' book will remain an all-important piece of the historical puzzle. Kudos, Professor, I wish I had had the privilege of being your student.

The jury did all right in the OJ Simpson case because there was no murder weapon, no confession and no eyewitness. How coincidental that Furman found both gloves. The DNA data was impossible to understand.

Why was a detective walking around with a vial of blood so long after he should have turned it in as evidence? How sloppy could a blood taker (Paratis) be in determining how many cc's he'd drawn? How strange that blacks and whites seemed to be overseeing two different trials. I paid too much attention to the talking heads at the time of the trial, but now I understand that most of the jury did not trust the police with good reason.