The legacy of the trial of OJ

Were there any lasting lessons from the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson? For those over the age of 35, it is hard to believe that it is now 20 years ago that the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson ended on Oct. 2, 1995, with the jury's verdict of not guilty. No trial in American history so captured public attention. Every national television network broadcast live the preliminary hearing in June 1994, the opening days of the trial in January 1995, and the verdict in October 1995. There were several nightly television shows devoted to recapping each day's courtroom events. Local station KTLA went from the lowest to the highest in daily ratings by broadcasting the entire trial; several cable networks did so as well.

In hindsight, it is easy to see why the nation was mesmerized for 15 months by this saga. Simpson was a huge celebrity with a very likeable image that made a double murder charge seem incongruous if not inconceivable. He had been a Heisman trophy winning football player at the University of Southern California and then a Hall of Fame running back for the Buffalo Bills. After his football career ended, he made movies and famous television commercials, such as for Hertz rental car.

The case was about murder, sex and race: Did Simpson, an African-American, kill his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman, both of whom were white? Had Simpson engaged in prior acts of domestic violence? Did the racism of the Los Angeles Police Department cause it to plant evidence to frame Simpson?

There was a cast of characters that no novelist could invent. There was Simpson's lead lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, and the head prosecutor, Marcia Clark, both highly experienced attorneys. There were fascinating witnesses, like Simpson's friend, Kato Kaelin, who seemed dazed and confused by it all. A police officer, Mark Fuhrman, repeatedly denied having made racist statements, only for tapes to be found where he did just that. Judge Lance Ito struggled to keep everything in control and was satirized on a regular basis on the Jay Leno show with "the dancing Itos."

There was the inherent drama of the uncertainty as to what the jury would decide. Along the way, the trial was filled with dramatic moments, such as when prosecutor Christopher Darden asked Simpson to try on a glove that had been found behind his house and Simpson showed that it did not fit. That led to one of the more memorable lines of the trial, when Cochran, in closing argument, told the jury, "If it does not fit, you must acquit."

I, too, got caught up in it all. The day before the preliminary hearing, I received calls from a couple of local television stations to be an on-air commentator. It was likely that the hearing would last over a week and they wanted someone to commit for the entire time. I declined. I then got a call from a producer at KCBS in Los Angeles and she said she was desperate and could I come in for just the next day. I did and got hooked. For virtually every day from then on, I did media commentary. I followed every word of the trial. My primary affiliation remained with KCBS and I struck an unusual deal: They did not have to pay me (which they didn't), but I would come when I was not teaching class or otherwise committed. I was on the set at KCBS when the jury verdict came down on Tuesday, Oct. 2 at 10:00 am.

Twenty years later, what did we learn? First, the quality of defense counsel matters enormously. Simpson was acquitted because he was able to afford truly outstanding lawyers. I often heard it said that he was found not guilty because he played "the race card." I believe that he was acquitted because he was able to play the gold card and hire a dream team of criminal defense attorneys. Study after study shows that criminal defendants who can afford to hire their own attorneys are far less likely to get convicted and if convicted, receive much shorter sentences.

Second, race enormously influences how we perceive the world. Numerous opinion polls showed that whites overwhelmingly thought Simpson was guilty, while a majority of African-Americans believed him to be innocent and to have been framed. In part, this likely was because of distrust of the LAPD in the African-American community. But it also reflects the extent to which we remain racially divided as a society and how much we are still a nation of "us" and "them." It is not coincidence then that the jury, which was almost entirely African-American, acquitted Simpson.

Third, a lasting effect of the case was to limit cameras in the courtroom, and that is not a good thing. Prior to the Simpson trial, there was a national trend to allowing court proceedings to be televised. The Federal Judicial Center had recently completed a pilot program in the federal courts and concluded that allowing cameras in the courtroom did not interfere with proceedings. Many state court systems had done similar studies and came to the same conclusion.

But the Simpson case changed all of that. It was widely perceived that the trial had turned into a media circus and that Judge Ito lost control over his courtroom. I don't believe that is true at all. I think the trial would have been almost exactly the same if there had not been cameras. Judge Ito kept careful control of the courtroom. My sense was that for many the Simpson case was a guilty pleasure. It was easy to blame the messenger; the cameras and jurisdictions across the country immediately halted the trend towards televising trials. Some places still allow it, but there is no doubt that it is far less because of the Simpson case.

This is undesirable. Courts are a part of government, and people should be able to see government proceedings. Many studies have shown that cameras in the courtroom do not adversely affect the proceedings.

Also, in virtually every high profile case since the Simpson trial, judges have put gag orders on the lawyers and the trial participants to keep them from commenting publicly or speaking to reporters. Such prior restraints on speech should be deemed to violate the First Amendment. There is no evidence that they have any beneficial effects in ensuring a fair trial. But they are now common nonetheless.

During the Simpson trial, lawyers and nonlawyers alike constantly talked and debated about points of law. Probably more people learned about the legal system from the Simpson case than from any other single event in American history. For years, I illustrated points in class or in public lectures with examples from the trial. But my most of my current students have no recollection of the trial or even of O.J. Simpson.