O.J. the Last Word (Hardcover)

by Gerry Spence (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal
One of the nation's most prominent trial lawyers, Spence (The Making of a Country Lawyer, LJ 10/15/96) has never lost a criminal case. He presents here a compelling postmortem of the O.J. Simpson criminal trial and exposes the shortcomings of all the parties involved, especially the prosecution. Spence is particularly critical of lead prosecutor Marcia Clark, who, he feels, was the wrong messenger presenting the wrong case to the wrong audience. He points out the prosecution's failures, from jury selection through closing arguments, especially noting the inability of Clark and coprosecutor Chris Darden to keep their emotions under control, their insistence on using a sterile approach in presenting expert testimony, and their reluctance to present critical evidence in a matter-of-fact, folksy manner that the jury could have appreciated. The race issue is also discussed, especially in terms of how the prosecution could have more successfully presented the case to a jury for whom the sociology of race was of paramount, though not ostensible, importance. An excellent book for both current and aspiring lawyers.?Phillip Young Blue, New York State Supreme Court Criminal Branch Lib., New York
Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews
Buried under windbag sermonizing and lofty moralizing lies a cogent analysis of how the prosecution lost the O.J. Simpson case. Celebrated defense attorney Spence (The Making of a Country Lawyer, 1996, etc.) devotes the first half of his book to establishing his bona fides as a man of the people: a country bumpkin in a buckskin jacket, a lawyer who scorns lawyers (who he witheringly says lack ``personhood'') and idealizes jurors (simple folks drenched in the wisdom of life experience). Spence can also be wildly inconsistent, at one moment saying, for instance, that Faye Resnick's account has a ring of truth, at another labeling it ``swill.'' But despite arrogant lawyers and dishonest cops, the real villain for Spence is the media and its ``rape of the judicial process''--invading the courtroom, corrupting the lawyers by making them celebrities, and offering endless punditry by commentators who, Spence claims, know nothing about trying a case. Of course, he admits, he was a media pundit himself. Still, he is a leading trial attorney (whom Simpson had wanted on his defense team), and he scores some illuminating points on why Marcia Clark and Chris Darden failed to make their case to the jury--and outlines the case they could have made. Most chilling is his retelling of two incidents: First, the events of January 1, 1989, when police responded to a battered Nicole Simpson's call for help--O.J.'s escape that night paralleled his escape after Nicole's and Ron Goldman's murder. Even more eerie is another incident never presented at the criminal trial: Right before the murders, Simpson was filming a scene for a TV show that also strangely prefigured the murders and in which, playing a former SEAL, he could have learned the slashing technique used to kill his ex-wife and her friend. Spence believes that O.J. was guilty but that the jury's acquittal was just. If his brief were less self-righteous, his legitimate arguments would be easier to swallow. (Literary Guild selection) -- Copyright ©1997, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 274 pages
• Publisher: St Martins Pr; 1st edition (October 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0312180098
• ISBN-13: 978-0312180096
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.2 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.1 out of 5 stars See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #207,947 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Finally a Simpson book that makes some sense, at least, November 19, 1997

By A Customer

Spence is one of the great lewyers of all time. It makes sense, then, that he should bring some light to all the furor over the OJ Case. He has explained, for the first time, what really happened in the case and why the Prosecution lost what appeared to be an "air tight" case. As he does in many of his books Spence takes the opportunity to moralize about our justice system and about its control by the corporate oligarchy. I wonder if anyone is paying attention? The man is right, and we need to wake up to what he is saying. Justice is not being done in America's courts and there is reason for it and a solution. Spence understands. Many who try cases regularly understand. The public needs to be made to understand before it is to late. Like Pastor Niemoller in Nazi Germany, we can wait too long to speak out. Read this book and then do something. We are in trouble with our justice system and it needs to be fixed.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Maybe I'm easy, but I liked it!, October 31, 1998

By A Customer

I disagree with the previous reviewers about how great the author thinks he is. He admits his participation in the media-barrage. And he writes with the enthusiasm of conviction. I liked his defense of the jurors and Judge Ito and I didn't think he was too hard on the prosecutors. I guess it comes down to whether you agree with his bottom line: better a guilty man get off than an innocent one be wrongfully convicted.

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The Philosophical Views of a Country Lawyer, October 23, 2000

By	No Name (Perth Amboy NJ) - See all my reviews

Gerry Spence was born and raised in Wyoming, and has lived there all his life. He has not lost a criminal case in his forty-year career, nor a civil case before a jury in twenty-five years. He is the Earl Rogers of our generation. He refuses to represent banks, insurance companies, big business, big corporations, and the rich and famous (unless there is a public issue involved).

This book contains his comments on the trial, and much more on the justice system, and other events of the times. OJ Simpson first wanted him as his defense lawyer; he talked to R. Shapiro , and then viewed the trial. He has many comments on this event. The "experts" who never tried a murder case, never saw the inside of a jail, never worked in a courtroom, but were interviewed by the media. He compares them to professors of surgery who have never used a scalpel! Gerry Spence writes about many things that need more discussion. He says that the collective wisdom of a jury is superior to any one judge or lawyer; I think this would be due to the dialogues involved in summing up different viewpoints. He noted that the OJ Trial was used to attack the jury system, and the rights of all citizens; but this has failed too.

Gerry Spence believes that OJ was guilty; but the evidence (and the jury) said otherwise. He mentions the person who claimed to have seen OJ at 10:45 driving north on Bundy, and sold her story for $5000 (she needed the money). This witness was never used by the prosecution or the defense. Since OJ was talking on the intercom to the limo driver at this time, he could not have been the driver of the "white vehicle". How reliable could this witness be? "Too good to be true"? The author doesn't discuss the possibility of "false witnessing" in this or other cases: e.g., "Tom Mooney" by Curt Gentry.

Gerry Spence notes that the jury system is a defense agains prosecutorial and judicial tyranny. If you have never read any of his books, this is a good one to start with. Chapter 19 discusses the mass psychology of people on the guilt of OJ (and others). It is well worth reading. Stephen Singular's "Legacy of Deception" said "all the blood evidence is suspect". I believe the socks and the glove were planted. If a guilty OJ could dispose of the bloody clothes, shoes, knives, etc. then the socks and glove would also be gone.