Deep Story

EP.12- Justice on Trial: The OJ Simpson Case

• MPT

Share episode

-Inspired by-
-The Run of His Life: The People v. O.J. Simpson
-Buy from Amazon: https://amzn.to/41GYjOu

-The O.J. Simpson trial, a case that captivated the world and challenged the core principles of American law. From the dramatic police chase that interrupted the NBA Finals to the courtroom battles that tested the presumption of innocence, this episode dives into the strategies, missteps, and controversies that turned the trial into a cultural phenomenon. Discover the lasting impact of this high-profile case on the justice system and explore how its twists still resonate today.

Support the show

Speaker 1:

Let's be real here, say it, dig it and analyze it. That's Deep Story. Thanks for tuning into Deep Story. I'm MPT and today I'm going to talk about a case from about 30 years ago in the US. And yeah, I actually remember seeing this on TV back then. Didn't think much of it at the time, just chalked it up as another piece of American tabloid drama. But let me tell ya the scene stuck in my head like gum on a shoe. Picture this Los Angeles, california. The cops are chasing a big-time celebrity, none other than OJ Simpson, down the freeway. His car's in the front cruising slow, cops in a line right behind and above them E News helicopters capturing the whole thing live. They say 100 million Americans were watching that chase, 100 million. And yeah, being the artsy type back then, I was one of them. I remember it vividly. Because his ESPN had to cut away from Game 5 of the NBA Finals, from game 5 of the NBA finals, the Knicks versus the Rockets. They split the screen. One side basketball, the other this slow speed soap opera on wheels. Talk about unforgettable. Now let's rewind to nearly 30 years ago.

Speaker 1:

June 13th 1994, morning breaks in a swanky LA neighborhood. A guy walks out and bam, he finds two people lying in pools of blood, stabbed to death. The cops arrive, check IDs and it turns out the man is Ron Goldman. Who's Ron? Oh, just your classic tall, handsome 20-something restaurant waiter. A good-looking guy, a young white dude with his whole life ahead of him. And the woman, nico Brown Simpson. She's 35, stunning, rich basically wheat Girl of the neighborhood.

Speaker 1:

The plot thickens. Turns out Nico wasn't just anybody. She was OJ Simpson's ex-wife. Now, who's OJ? Only one of the biggest stars in America. Back then he wasn't just a football player. No, no, no, he was the football player. Football's the number one sport in the US and this guy was a legend. Oh, and he wasn't just tossing touchdowns, he was also a movie star. The man had done over 20 films Tall, Charismatic, funny and, oh yeah, black. He had fans from every corner of the country. But here's the kicker OJ had a history of domestic abuse. Yeah, he'd hit Nicole before and even after their divorce there was drama.

Speaker 1:

Naturally, the cops were suspicious. So they head over to OJ's place. It's close by. They knock, but no OJ. Now, officially, the cops said they weren't there to investigate him. Oh, no, they claimed we're here to make sure he's safe. His ex-wife just got murdered. He could be next. Aha, sure, they even said they were worried about his kids who were living with him. Real thoughtful, huh. So when knocking didn't work, the cops did what any good protectors would do they climbed over the wall and secured the property. Once inside, boy did they hit the jackpot. They found OJ's car. It had blood on it, and not just any blood Ron Goldman's and Nicole's. Then they find a glove in the yard, the other glove that was at the murder scene. Both gloves had blood on them too. Oh, and a sock, guess what More blood. If you're the cops, at this point you're thinking this is it Case closed. A few days later they arrest Oku J. They see cuts on his hands and, yep, his blood was at the scene too, the evidence Looking solid as steel.

Speaker 1:

Fast forward to June 17th and we get to the famous freeway, chase OJ's in a white Ford Bronco, a driving slow like he's out for Sunday brunch, and behind him are a line of cop cars. That, my friends, was the start of one of the wildest sagas in American legal history. Why didn't the cops just swoop in like a scene from an action movie and tackle OJ Simpson on the freeway. Well, here's the thing the man had a gun. The police were worried he might kill himself or hurt someone else. And let's not forget, this was OJ Simpson, america's darling. You don't want to turn a nationwide spectacle into an even bigger disaster, right? So, after that video we all saw, oj finally gets off the freeway and drives home. He goes inside, has a glass of orange juice because hey, priorities and then calmly surrenders to the police, arrested without further drama.

Speaker 1:

Now, anyone with even a sliver of modern legal knowledge knows that no matter how much evidence piles up, no matter how guilty someone seems, they're still just a suspect until proven guilty in court, and thus began what they called the trial of the century. This case, folks, was something else. Even in the long-storied history of American justice, it stands out like a neon sign. You ask me, a hundred years from now, they'll still be talking about this trial. If you want to understand how the US US legal system works, this case is the example. Here's the deal Under American law, a person is innocent until proven guilty, even if the evidence seems rock solid.

Speaker 1:

The accused walks into that courtroom wearing a suit looking sharp, because appearance matters. It's their right, sure, but it's also strategy. If you look respectable, the jury might just think each mem, maybe they're not so bad. After all, the courtroom's like a sports arena prosecution versus defense, playing by strict rules, and the judge the referee. The final score, that's for the jury to decide. Until that verdict comes down, the defendant remains a free person, presumed innocent.

Speaker 1:

The judge, in this setup, isn't there to pick a side. They're not the coach or the star player, they're the one making sure the game's fair. They decide what evidence gets in, what questions can be asked, and they blow the whistle whenever one side breaks the rules. The lawyers they argue, object and strategize, but the judge keeps the whole thing on track. On the prosecution's side you had Marcia Clark, the Los Angeles district attorney. It was her job to piece together the evidence and present it in a way that convinced the jury OJ was guilty.

Speaker 1:

Prosecutors don't just grab any charge, they've got to analyze every angle. Do they go for first-degree murder, which means premeditation and planning that could lead to the death penalty or life in prison, or do they go for second-degree murder? Less planning may be a crime of passion, which comes with a lighter sentence. Clark decided to charge Opoi J with two counts of first-degree murder. She believed the evidence was airtight. But here's where strategy comes in. Clark chose not to push for the death penalty. Why A? Because asking for a death sentence puts a huge psychological burden on the jury. Imagine knowing your decision could literally end someone's life. That's enough to make anyone hesitate, maybe even lean toward a lesser charge just to avoid the guilt. Instead, clark aimed to secure a guilty verdict without adding that extra layer of pressure.

Speaker 1:

On the defense side, oj spared no expense. He assembled a legal dream team that was nothing short of legendary. These lawyers weren't just good, they were elite. The trial became a national spectacle a battle of evidence, logic and pure courtroom drama. The defense had one big advantage they didn't need to prove OJ didn't kill anyone. To prove OJ didn't kill anyone, they didn't even need to refute every piece of evidence. All they had to do was create reasonable doubt. That's the magic phrase in American law. If the jury thinks maybe there's something off about this evidence, that's it Game over for the prosecution. It's a huge advantage for the defense, which is why great lawyers are worth every penny and, trust me, they charge plenty of pennies.

Speaker 1:

Let's talk about the real stars of an American courtroom the jury. Sure, they sit quietly against the wall during the trial, barely moving or speaking. But don't let that fool you. In the end, it's the jury who decides whether the defendant is guilty or walks free. Sentencing, that's the judge's job. But guilty or not guilty, that's all jury territory. And let me tell you, america's jury system is unique. Even countries that also use juries don't do it quite like the US.

Speaker 1:

Now, picking a jury isn't as simple as drawing names out of a hat. Both the prosecution and defense can eliminate certain potential jurors just because they don't like how they look or think they might be biased. Seriously, your haircut or skin tone might cost you a seat. After all the cutting and trimming, the final jury is made up of people both sides agree on. In the Simpson trial they picked 24 people, 12 main jurors and 12 alternates. If any of the main jurors got disqualified during the trial like showing bias an alternate would step in. But here's the kicker If they ran out of alternates and dropped below 12 jurors, boom, mysterial Start over. By the end of the Simpson trial, only two alternates were left. That's how close they came to a complete reset. And here's another twist for high-profile cases like this, jurors can't go home. Normally jurors can sleep in their own beds, but not here, oh no.

Speaker 1:

For nine months yes, nine months these folks were isolated from the world. No newspapers, no TV, no idle gossip over snacks. Even a candy bar run meant a court officer tagging along to make sure no one whispered anything about the case. Their only information came from the courtroom itself. Talk about lockdown before lockdowns were a thing. So the trial kicks off, the jury's set, the courtroom's buzzing, and now we've got nine months of legal drama. Spoiler alert yeah, I'm just gonna spill it.

Speaker 1:

After all that, the jury came back with an unanimous verdict not guilty. Yep, oj Simpson walked out of that courtroom, a free man, and I know what you're thinking. Wait, what Didn't? The blood, the gloves, the cuts on his hands? How is this guy not guilty? You're not alone. That's exactly what most Americans thought back then, and a lot of them still think it today. If you walked up to someone in the US right now and asked hey, remember that case from 1994? Who do you think did it Old Tsar? They'd say oh, it was totally him. But it didn't matter. The court made its decision.

Speaker 1:

And here's the big question, the one everyone asks Isn't the point of the law to ensure no innocent person is punished and no guilty person goes free. If OJ was the guilty party, why was he let off the hook? Does this mean America's justice system is broken? On one side, you've got Simpson walking free. On the other, in, two people dead, two families devastated, justice seemingly undone. It's easy to look at this case and scream this is proof. The system is a failure, a travesty, a joke. But hold on, don't go all Judge, judy just yet. Let's zoom back into that courtroom and see how this legal chess match unfolded. Because that's what it was a game of wits, strategy and maneuvering.

Speaker 1:

It starts with the prosecution. They're holding the black pieces, making the first move and, oh boy, they open strong, leaking some juicy case details to the press. For a case involving a superstar like OJ Simpson, the media was practically salivating for any tidbit of information. Leak them a little something and boom, instant headlines. And boy, there were plenty of juicy details flying around, all attributed to sources close to the investigation who wished to remain anonymous. Sound familiar.

Speaker 1:

So why did the prosecution go all in on leaking information? Simple First, oj was a beloved celebrity. The prosecution needed to flip the narrative. They didn't want the public seeing him as this charming, harmless guy anymore. No, no, they wanted people to start thinking Could he be a monster? The seeds of doubt had to be planted early. Second, these leaks were all happening before the jury was even formed. Once the jury was selected and sequestered, their exposure to outside information would be completely cut off. So by flooding the media beforehand, the prosecution ensured that any potential jurors were already swimming in a sea of suspicion before stepping into the courtroom. That, folks, is what you call a masterful opening move. In this round, the prosecution scored a flawless victory.

Speaker 1:

Now on to the next round in this courtroom chess match the fight over the grand jury. Yep, new term alert. Eh, you're probably familiar with the regular jury or petted jury. That's the one that sits in court and decides guilt or innocence. But before a case even gets to trial, there's often a grand jury bigger in size, still made up of regular folks.

Speaker 1:

The grand jury's job is to decide whether the prosecutor's evidence is strong enough to bring charges in the first place. Why have this extra step? Because the American legal system is designed to protect the little guy. Think about it the government has virtually unlimited resources. If they wanted to, they could drown an ordinary citizen in lawsuits and just bury you under court dates and legal fees without even locking you up. That's still a kind of punishment right. To prevent this, the Constitution requires a grand jury to give cases a preliminary thumbs up or thumbs down before formal charges can proceed. It's a safeguard against abuse of power.

Speaker 1:

But here's the twist in this case, oj Simpson's defense team pulled a bold move. They demanded the grand jury be dismissed and replaced with a preliminary hearing in front of a judge. Risky, you bet. Let's talk risks first. A grand jury operates in what's essentially a black box. The public doesn't get to see what happens and neither does the defense team. If the grand jury says hi, yes to the charges, that's it, you move forward. But in a preliminary hearing with a judge, everything's out in the open.

Speaker 1:

All the prosecution's evidence gets aired in front of the media and for OJ that meant even more bad press. Imagine the headline is Blood on the Gloves. Dna evidence links Simpson to the scene. Not great for his public image. So why take this gamble? Because there was one big advantage. Why take this gamble? Because there was one big advantage In a judge-led preliminary hearing, the defense team gets to sit at the table. They get a front row seat to everything the prosecution has up its sleeve. Every piece of evidence is laid bare and the defense gets to study it all. Meanwhile, the defense isn't obligated to show their cards at all. It's like playing poker, where you can see your opponent's hand but yours stays hidden.

Speaker 1:

The defense was betting on a simple trade-off let the media frenzy worsen for OJ in exchange for gaining precious intel. And it worked. Over the next four months, as the trials jury was being selected, oj's legal dream team had a clear picture of what they were up against. That extra time and insight Priceless. It turned the courtroom into a battleground where they had the upper hand, at least strategically. During those four months before the trial began, simpson's defense team wasted no time. They used the window to laser focus on dismantling the prosecution's evidence piece by piece. By the time the trial officially started, the defense had done their homework, and then some. But make no mistake, oj's public image took a beating. The media storm surrounding the case grew more intense and things looked worse for him every day. This was round two, and while the defense gained strategic ground, they paid for it with a mounting PR disaster.

Speaker 1:

Now we come to round three, the trial itself. The courtroom was a battlefield where both sides traded blow after blow. Witnesses came and went, some helping, some hurting their own side. And though the drama there's enough juicy detail here to fuel a dozen soap operas. But let's focus on one of the trial's most pivotal moments the showdown with Detective Mark Foreman, who's Furman? He's the APD officer who hopped Simpson's fence, found that bloody glove and discovered the incriminating sock. Basically, he was the key witness for the prosecution, their ace in the hole. When he took the stand, sitting tall and confident. The defense was ready and confident, the defense was ready. They had a trap waiting for him, a big ugly, reputation-shattering trap.

Speaker 1:

The cross-examination began innocently enough. The defense asked Foreman Detective Foreman, have you ever been racist? Without missing a beat, he replied never. Next question have you ever used the n-word that's right, the n-word, the most toxic, racially charged term in American English? Again, foreman denied it outright no, never. And then came the knockout punch the defense revealed a tape recording evidence that would destroy Foreman's credibility. It turned out that over the past decade, a writer from North Carolina had interviewed Foreman multiple times while researching a book on APD culture Unbeknownst to most. She had recorded those conversations In these tapes. Foreman didn't just drop the N-word once or twice, he used it 41 times 41. And not just that, he bragged about plan-planting evidence against black suspects.

Speaker 1:

The courtroom exploded. Foreman's prior testimony was now a ticking time bomb of perjury. His denials on the stand didn't just undermine his credibility, they made him look like a liar and a racist. Worse, if the jury believed he might have planted evidence before, who's to say he didn't do it again? In this case, foreman, once the prosecution's star witness, was now their biggest liability. The defense had turned the tables and this round belonged to them.

Speaker 1:

But let's pause for a moment and appreciate the Herculean effort behind this maneuver. Herculean effort behind this maneuver. Think about it. How on earth did Simpson's lawyers even find this recording? A foreman and the writer's conversations were deeply private, coffee shop chats, intimate meetings with no third parties around. Foreman certainly didn't advertise these interviews and the writer wasn't exactly leaving breadcrumbs. So how the defense uncovered her and the tape, that's still a mystery. And then there's the matter of persuasion. The writer wasn't just some casual acquaintance of Foreman's Rumor. Had it whispered, mostly by the prosecution, that there had been romantic overtones in their relationship. Some even suggested she had written him love letters, if that's true convincing her to turn over such damning evidence against someone she had once cared for. That's next-level negotiation. Simpson's lawyers had to navigate an emotional minefield to secure that tape, but however they pulled it off they did.

Speaker 1:

The recording made it to court and it hit like a bombshell For the defense. It was a masterstroke, for the prosecution, a disaster. Foreman's credibility was obliterated and with it the strength of the prosecution's case. This wasn't just a setback for the prosecution, it was their waterloo.

Speaker 1:

The trial, already hanging in the balance, now tilted sharply in Simpson's favor when Detective Foreman returned to court for the second time. He wasn't just a disgraced officer, he was done His career in law enforcement over. The scandal surrounding his testimony had made it impossible for him to stay on the force and the defense team, sensing blood in the water, went in for the kill. They bombarded him with rapid-fire questions Did you plant evidence? Were those bloody socks and gloves put there on purpose? It was relentless. A foreman, knowing he was in over his head, showed up with a lawyer this time, and every time he was asked a critical question he turned to his attorney, whispered a bit, then told the judge I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights.

Speaker 1:

Now let's break that down. What's the Fifth Amendment and why did it matter so much here? The Fifth Amendment is part of the US Constitution and it states that no citizen can be forced to incriminate themselves. In plain English, it means you can stay silent if answering would land you in legal trouble. You've heard this in crime shows. It's the famous. You have the right to remain silent From the Miranda warning.

Speaker 1:

Foreman wasn't going to say a word. That might add to his already sky-high pile of problems. The judge overseeing this circus wasn't black or white. That might add to his already sky-high pile of problems. The judge overseeing this circus wasn't black or white. He was a Japanese-American named Judge Lance Ito. He had a tough decision to make regarding Foreman's explosive recordings. Ultimately he decided the jury could hear some of the tapes, but only carefully edited excerpts. Out of the 41 times Foreman used the N-word in those tapes, the jury only heard it twice, and even then in less inflammatory contexts. This measured approach gave the jury a glimpse into Foreman's biases without completely setting the courtroom on fire. Ito also made sure the jury knew about Foreman's decision to plead the fifth.

Speaker 1:

While he didn't outright declare Foreman guilty of planting evidence, the implication was clear. If you're refusing to answer questions, what are you hiding? For the jury, it was a balancing act. They couldn't outright dismiss Fulman's evidence, but doubts about his integrity loomed large. The foundation of the prosecution's case, built on Fulman's discoveries, was now shaky at best. Without his credibility, their arguments looked less like a solid structure and more like a collapsing house of cards.

Speaker 1:

After Foreman's courtroom debacle, the prosecution was effectively checkmated. There was no coming back from this. Round three of this legal battle was over and the defense emerged victorious. That left the fourth and final round, the jury's verdict. By now, the entire country was on edge.

Speaker 1:

Two iconic moments illustrate just how invested America was in this case. Just how invested America was in this case. In Atlanta's airport, a Delta Airlines gate agent told passengers it was time to board. Instead of complying, over 100 people shouted in unison shut up, we're watching the verdict. Meanwhile, at the New York Stock Exchange, trading ground to a virtual halt, traders stood glued to screens, ignoring the market.

Speaker 1:

Until the decision was announced, from the highest levels of government to average citizens, america collectively held its breath. Judge Ito had repeatedly reminded the jury you must base your verdict only on the evidence presented in court, not on the personalities or performances of the attorneys. But in just four hours of deliberation the jury returned to the courtroom. The envelope was handed to the court clerk, the jury's foreperson rose to announce the decision. In the case of the people of the state of California versus Oriental James Simpson, we find the defendant not guilty. Ah, the courtroom erupted. Gasps, cheers and stunned silence filled the room. Oj Simpson walked out, a free man, legally untouchable, for better or worse. The trial of the century had reached its conclusion.

Speaker 1:

This brings us to one of the cornerstone principles of American law double jeopardy. In simple terms, it means that if someone is acquitted of a crime, they can't be tried for the same offense again, no matter what. Even if new evidence emerges that proves guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, the verdict stands. And yes, even if the person outright confesses later, the legal system cannot reverse their acquittal. Sounds wild, right, but believe it or not, this exact scenario played out with OJ Simpson. Years after the trial broke, and desperate from endless lawsuits, he teamed up with a publisher to release a book titled If I Did it. In this book he described in excruciating detail how he would have committed the murders if he were the killer. And let me tell you that Heath was doing some serious heavy lifting, because the book all but screamed Wes, I did it. Yet book all but screamed Wes, I did it. Yet even with this virtual confession, the law's hands were tied. Thanks to double jeopardy, simpson remained a free man.

Speaker 1:

Naturally, people were outraged. Why let an obvious criminal walk free, they asked. But here's the thing the American legal system prioritizes limiting government power over delivering perfect justice. In every case, the rationale is that it's better to let a guilty person go free than to allow the state to endlessly pursue someone, potentially abusing its resources to harass or oppress innocent citizens. It's a principle rooted in protecting civil liberties, even if it occasionally means stomach-churning outcomes like this one.

Speaker 1:

But let's consider an alternate reality. What if the jury had found Simpson guilty back in 1995? Would that have been the end of the road for him? Not necessarily In the US. A guilty verdict doesn't mean instant punishment. Defendants have the right to appeal, which could drag on for years, and even if the ultimate sentence were something as severe as the death penalty, carrying it out would take much longer. Death penalty cases in the US are notorious for their lengthy appeals processes requiring multiple layers of review. So, even with a guilty verdict, simpson's legal battles could have continued indefinitely.

Speaker 1:

Here's the real takeaway from all this the jury system and the broader American judicial process aren't perfect. They're slow, expensive and sometimes produce results that seem downright unjust. Take the Simpson trial, for example. The case lasted nine months and cost Los Angeles taxpayers $8.5 million a jaw-dropping amount at the time, and that's if you're being optimistic about how smoothly things went. This financial burden, combined with the emotionally devastating outcome, made many people question the system's effectiveness.

Speaker 1:

Yet this is the price of building and maintaining a society governed by the rule of law. The US judicial system's obsessive focus on protecting individual rights means that, yes, sometimes guilty people escape justice, but the alternative a system where government power goes unchecked is far worse. Creating a legal framework that minimizes wrongful convictions and shields citizens from state abuse requires enormous resources, patience and collective willpower. In the end, the Simpson trial wasn't just a courtroom drama. It was a reminder of the enormous costs of living in a free society. It forced Americans to confront an uncomfortable truth Justice isn't perfect, and protecting everyone's rights can come at an agonizing price. But that's the trade-off for living in a nation where the rule of law reigns supreme, and as painful as it can be. Most people have agreed it's a price worth paying.