Even before jurors declared O.J. Simpson not guilty, his murder trial had produced a verdict by many Americans on the nation’s criminal justice system.
Whether it was the nine months of testimony, posturing and press conferences, the expensive team of defense attorneys, a racist police officer or the mishandling of evidence, the trial convinced many observers that the scales of justice are out of balance.
And regardless of public perceptions about the merits of the verdict, its stunning swiftness only highlighted what some see as the system’s flaws.
“The American criminal justice system looks absolutely awful. It couldn’t look worse,” said Albert Alschuler, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
“It’s a sad day for people’s perceptions of the criminal justice system,” said Yale Kamisar, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. “It provides ammunition for those people who are very cynical about the criminal justice system, who believe if you have enough money, if you have enough power, if you have enough fame, you can buy a dream team, and the odds are very high that you will not be convicted.”
To that end, legal experts said, the trial likely will guide short-term efforts for reform, from overhauling jury selection procedures to revising the number of people on juries to whether verdicts must be unanimous to whether cameras should be in the courtroom.
And in the long term, the trial also could prompt efforts to loosen rules of evidence and allow witnesses to testify more freely in court, legal experts said.
But these proposals, the experts said, are based on a trial that is unlike any the nation’s criminal justice system has ever seen. Indeed, when asked about the trial, legal experts uniformly referred to it as an “aberration.”
“This trial has veered so far from the daily trials in America,” said Michael Kahn, an attorney in St. Louis.
“O.J. versus the ordinary criminal trial – it’s like comparing what goes on in Jurassic Park to the Lincoln Park Zoo.”
Rarely, experts say, do murder trials last more than a week. Rarely are they televised. Rarely do attorneys play to the media. And rarely does a judge give lawyers so much latitude in the courtroom.
State legislators in California have responded to the trial by introducing legislation to change the jury system.
One proposal would eliminate the requirement that criminal juries have 12 people. Another would do away with the requirement that juries be unanimous in their decisions.
Legal experts predicted similar efforts will be made across the country, just as judges from South Carolina to California have shown an increasing reluctance to allow cameras in the courtroom.
“In Illinois, we don’t have cameras in the courtroom, and the advocates for the cameras just got their cause pushed back 100 years,” said Marijane Placek, a Cook County assistant public defender.
Almost from the beginning of the Simpson trial, people have argued that the presence of cameras in the courtroom has distorted the proceedings.
Diane Saltoun, an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago, called press conferences by Simpson prosecutors “unprecedented.” Defense attorneys and even Judge Lance Ito also have played to the camera, she said.
Steven Brill, chief executive officer and founder of Court TV, said recently that since his network started, he had feared a high-profile trial would “go badly” and rule the debate.
But Brill argued that the Simpson trial is no different from other high-profile trials.
After the notorious 1935 trial of Bruno Hauptmann for the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, he said, two jurors signed up for vaudeville acts. After Charles Manson’s trial, the prosecutor wrote a book, he said.
More Top Picks Best Egg Yolk Separators
The Hauptmann trial brought changes. In 1937, judicial guidelines called for bans on all photographic and broadcast coverage of courtroom proceedings.
In 1952, they were extended to television coverage. It was only in the 1970s that states began lifting the bans.
Those issues aside, some legal experts said that the Simpson trial could bring about much-needed, long-term reforms. Although most legal experts criticized such short-term solutions as eliminating unanimous jury verdicts in capital cases, they said some changes were necessary.
“I think it’s likely to have a very good effect on the criminal justice system because people have seen just how bad our courtroom proceedings are,” Alschuler said. “People are appropriately appalled as they see Judge Ito demanding that lawyers rephrase questions, for reasons no one can understand.”
One practice that could become much more widespread is practiced by Cook County Circuit Court Judge Warren Wolfson, Alschuler said. Wolfson is one of a handful of judges who allows jurors to submit written questions. He reviews the questions and presents them to the lawyers.
“The exaggerated nature of the tactics and coverage and allegations is going to make a lot of lay persons, for the foreseeable future, very, very skeptical about whether the system produces appropriate results,” said Vincent Connelly, a Chicago defense attorney and former federal prosecutor.
And that could influence other trials, as well.
“They are going to start thinking that there is some superstar lawyer who can get anyone off, and that’s what the system is about,” Placek said. “It serves to trivialize the system.”
Saltoun said she fears the Simpson trial could “make potential jurors think there’s more to deciding a case than just the evidence.”
Simpson prosecutors have said they were worried about what’s known as “jury nullification.” That’s what happens when jurors go outside the evidence or the law to reach a verdict.
“That’s potentially bad for the criminal justice system. It plants the idea in potential jurors heads that it’s all right to look at other issues,” Saltoun said. “The only thing you should be looking at is the evidence. . . .”
Others said the trial will influence defense attorneys and prosecutors, both in their performance in court and their preparation beforehand.
Robert Tarun, a criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, predicted that jurors will view police testimony differently in future trials because of the racist views of Mark Fuhrman, the Los Angeles police officer accused of planting evidence.
“I feel free. We were there for nine months. we didn’t need another nine months to decide. I think we did the right thing. In fact, I know we did.”
-Juror Brenda Moran.
“This trial has veered so far from the daily trials in America. O.J. versus the ordinary criminal trial-it’s like comparing what goes on in Jurassic Park to the Lincoln Park Zoo.”
-St. Louis attorney Michael Kahn.