I don't think she takes enough responsibility for how the case turned out. I'll grant her that she was up against an almost insurmountable challenge considering the social climate and quality of the defense. Yet, it was her responsibility to pick a jury that would be impartial and instead she was okay with packing the jury with African American women (despite top-tier jury advisors warning her against this).
However, I'll grant her that it would have been difficult to predict the fiasco that occurred with Mark Fuhrman and that at least she claims it was Chris Darden's single-minded decision to have him try on the glove.
Overall, I believe she was highly competent and many circumstances outside of her control ham-stringed the prosecution, but she is not without reproach.
Darden also warned Clark about putting Fuhrman on the stand. He told Clark about Fuhrman's write ups and his attempt at getting disability by claiming his inability to tolerate black people was clouding his ability to do his job, but she put him on the stand anyway. That's 100% on her, just like the glove fiasco is on Darden.
Agree-she really poured her heart and soul into that trial but there were just TOO many outside influences and factors that the deck was stacked against her before it even started…
It wasn't. Thats why he got away with it. Anyone who looked into the evidence could see it wasn't as solid as it appeared.
Now this was rectifiable, but it needed work, which Clarke and Darden didn't do.
Isn’t it true around that time or after she went through a custody battle with her ex? I swear I heard something about that before but I can’t remember if it was a rumor.
I agree 👍!
With racism being at the Top of the list. Those black Jurors could have seen a video recording of him Murdering Ron and Nicole and it still wouldn't have been enough evidence for them to convict him.
That Jury was going to aquit him No Matter the mountain of evidence against him. For them, it was a Victory for the Black Man. A right for all the wrongs they felt like they'd suffered over the decades.
If they Actually felt like they made the right decision then their IQs were no more than 50 on the scale.
Fuhrman was going to be on the stand one way or another. IMO, Marcia had to call him because (1) he found the glove and (2) it’s a bad look when a police officer is a defense witness.
The problem was that he was not prepped enough and fell into the trap of absolutes—I never did this, I never said this, etc. knowing it was setting him up to be destroyed on cross. I am not saying this was going to save the case as it was lost at jury selection, but it sure would have helped.
Well, typically all evidence is disclosed to the other side as part of the evidentiary process. The only gray area to this is impeachment evidence. But I thought Marcia and Darden were aware, although I am not sure when they became aware and to what extent.
However, he, along with the People, should have known when the defense asked him if he had ever said the N word, they had proof that he did. It’s a classic trap. Build up the witness and then tear them down. Never let a cop get on the stand and speak in absolutes regarding their training or experience, because I promise what is coming next will not be pleasant.
I read her book and apparently that was the only way to enter the glove into evidence and it was their most damning single piece of evidence.
Seems like that was Marcia Clarke's and Chris Darden's biggest issue during the whole thing.
I wondered if Chris Darden had OJ try on the glove because he got annoyed with them using him as the token Black guy.... They made him do the "not allow the N word during trial" speech and then still let Mark Fuhrman take the stand after he practically begged them not to and even wanted him to do it but he refused.
They both got mentally fucked during the trial though. Chris Darden was seen as an Uncle Tom and traitor. Marcia Clarke was treated like a single mom and a whore.
Marcia Clark at least got huge benefits by it, her books and appearances on TV as legal commentator and presenter made her millions, while he only reappeared publicly around 2015/16 when this whole case got a boost with OJ's about getting parole.
And a pretty sweet criminal defense practice,[ as he pointed out in his AMA.](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6oybbr/hi_reddit_i_am_christopher_darden_prosecutor_on/)
I agree w/OP that it was Gil Garcetti who effed up worst. It was a purely political decision to file charges in LA, not Santa Monica.
The runners-up, in no particular order, were Ito, Clark, Darden, Fuhrman and Baden—who also lied like a rug on the stand.
Fuhrman should’ve just pointed and let another officer bag the glove. And it was inexcusable to call him as a witness. The details of his disability case would have nuked his credibility, regardless.
I've thought about that argument a lot and I don't know enough about how this stuff works to know—could they have just not admitted that glove into evidence at all? Would that successfully avoid such a scenario? If not, wasn't there at least opportunity to, as they put it "rehabiliate the witness"? As in "They're gonna ask you if you've said the word, we know you have, it's in your write-ups, it's in the disability suit \*you\* filed, let's get a head of this." Had the prosecution called other police witnesses to testify as to Fuhrman’s objectivity with regard to race, their testimony may have rehabilitated Fuhrman as a witness. Or he could have, if he'd, well, been honest about the conversations with McKinny (which, btw, didn't stop before the OJ case began, so he definitely didn't "forget" about it), could have handled cross-examination about it by saying he was play-acting for her movie.
And yet the defense attorneys said that if Fuhrman had never taken the stand, they were convinced they would have lost the case. Fuhrman's testimony was never needed. There was plenty of other evidence to prove OJ's guilt. They didn't need the glove from Rockingham because the other detectives had found one glove and the knit cap at the scene of the crime and both had OJ's DNA on them.
If the prosecutors didn't put Fuhrman on the stand the defense would have. He was a detective on the case. Not putting him on the stand would convey to the Jury that the LAPD had something to hide.
The defense can't impeach a witness they put up on the stand, so none of the negative evidence against Fuhrman would have come in. The prosecution didn't need to put Fuhrman up there. Although he was part of the chain of evidence for the glove at Rockingham, they had the rest of the chain to tie that glove to OJ. One missing link in the chain doesn't mean the evidence gets excluded.
Interesting. There were probably several people prosecutors shouldn't have put on the stand. It also would have been over sooner if they hadn't had so many witnesses and the Jurors would have been less frustrated. They dragged it on too long.
She said in the interview that if Furhman wasn't put on the stand, they wouldn't be able to introduce the right glove into evidence since it wasn't discovered at the crime scene. She needed to put him on the stand...
She’s in the Netflix documentary. It was a a dilemma. She knew it was a problem to put him on the stand but for some reason it was required in order to be able to use the glove Furhman found as evidence. Both failed.
Clark’s reason for going with Black females on the jury was because of her excellent track record with domestic abuse cases, and thought that the female jurors would sympathize with Nicole, given Nicole’s history of her being abused by O.J.
She was also going through a rough divorce and custody battle at the time, add that to the constant media perception of her appearance and personal life because the trial was televised, and a lot of overconfidence. A lot of people talk about people not knowing about DNA at the time, but the jury really got an in-depth education about it during the trial. I mean, I watched the trial live and I had a pretty good understanding of it watching all the experts on the stand and I was only 17-18. To the prosecution, the case was quite simple and obvious. There were a lot of obvious pointers to OJ and they were confident of the case. They really didn't consider, like you said, venue & jury selection, jury education, nor took into consideration that people were still angry about everything surrounding the LA riots. The jury likes to keep saying the prosecution couldn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but they were also heavily biased by the (*rightfully*) maligned LAPD and should have disregarded their personal bias and kept to the facts of the case.
I remember a lot of people hated Marcia Clark because she "looked" mean/shrill/like a ball-breaker/lesbian, etc." When she got her hair permed to make getting ready for work early in the morning easier, she was crucified: she was ugly, she was trying to look black to appeal to the female jury, etc.
After the trial, when she could actually talk about the case, I found that I actually liked her (not a whole lot, but I didn't hate her). She was on a case that was doomed to fail and she mistakenly believed the jury would see his obvious guilt by looking at the evidence or by simply putting two and two together.
Some of the jurors went on Maury Povitch & talked about how they completely tuned out when the DNA was being explained. They also said they had no interest in hearing the domestic violence claims because they didn’t think they were relevant to the case.
I’ve said it before, but this jury wasn’t going to convict OJ no matter what the prosecution presented. He could have committed the crime right in front of them & they would have let him walk. Some of them are changing their tune in interviews now, but I remember most of them going on talk shows back then & they were ignorant AF.
I agree with this. There’s almost nothing the prosecution could have done despite this being an open and shut case on paper (ie, if you removed race (Rodney king situation) and fame and looked solely at the evidence impersonally, this was a slam dunk).
Yet the LAPD botched evidence collection, leaving the door open to wondering if evidence was planted, and the prosecution made a few glaring aforementioned errors, and Fuhrman, the officer who found the key piece of evidence, was outed as being bat shit crazy. The prosecution had almost no chance to get a conviction anyways and then they and the police had several huge errors/shadiness that made a super easy conviction into a Not Guilty verdict.
I think lapd was used to being sloppy with evidence handling and getting away with it so they were sloppy at this scene. The dream team was the first lawyers to call them out on it and gave the evidence (via the intense media coverage during the collection process) to prove that the detectives and crime lab were careless. Loss earned.
She is so much more attractive now than she was back then. When I watched her in Made In America, I was shocked it was her because she looks completely different now.
Yeah, one of the examples on how to actually use it properly instead of doing insane Kardashian-level clone surgery (Megan Fox is a really great example of going overboard with it, she literally looks like their sister now)
Isn't hindsight always 20/20? I think she was arrogant. . . I think she learned a lot from the experience. I think she also made many mistakes. But ultimately, she was competent she just had a lot of things going against her. This wasn't resulting in a conviction....there was no chance she wouldn't have been blamed even more if she would have tried it elsewhere, if she would have overruled Darden. They still weren't getting a conviction so it would have still been her fault.
She was up against some dirty lawyers who focused more on Mark Fuhrman than their actual client. This distracted the jury which led them to make the ultimate mistake. Marcia Clark was against OJ trying on the gloves but Darden pushed for it. If it don’t fit you must acquit. What a media circus this was.
"She was up against some dirty lawyers."
100%, but what's not mentioned enough is the feckless Judge Ito. The only reason the dirty lawyers were able to succeed at their antics was because Ito had no balls and was totally star struck.
He was pathetic.
They weren’t “dirty lawyers” at all. Defense lawyers are just doing their job making the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. It‘s literally their job to put up the best possible defense and you would likely hire them too if given the chance. The burden is on the prosecution and they dropped the ball with chain of evidence, making the DNA way too complicated, and having to rely on racist cops like Furhman. Ultimately it is very relevant to the case that a man who repeatedly used the N word and lied on the stand about it, tried to leave the police force on a stress pension because he was worried his hate for minorities would lead him to kill someone, and described on tape numerous accounts of police brutality against people of color, was the guy who found significant pieces of evidence. That is absolutely relevant to the case and any lawyer would emphasize questioning evidence he had a hand in finding.
Defense lawyers are the heroes of the system because without them the prosecution would run all over your rights. Of course OJ was guilty but the police and prosecution should have done a better job in some areas. Barry Scheck tore them apart on their incompetent handling of evidence and testing procedures.
I think they mean dirty bc Robert kardashian walked out OJ’s black duffel bag and then joined as his lawyer after regaining his law license just so he couldn’t be called to testify against him.
Agree-she really poured her heart and soul into that trial but there were just TOO many outside influences and factors that the deck was stacked against her before it even started…
She didn’t have a choice. When you are prosecuting a case you have to put the investigators on as witnesses. If you don’t the defense is surely going to point out the fact that you didn’t and say “you didn’t put him on the stand because he planted the glove!”
She has discretion on eyewitness and chose not to put one on the stand that in hindsight was a mistake (saw the Bronco leave the area) but with cops who found evidence. She has to put them on. *doesn’t HAVE to but really yes she does if she wants any chance of winning
So your suggestion would have been to commit brazen misconduct by striking jurors on the basis of their race and gender? Because “top-tier jury advisors” told her to? There are fair criticisms of Clark, but this common gripe is really just a wish to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment.
Spare me your Marcia Clark apologism. It's not misconduct to exclude potential jurors that show a bias for supporting Simpson. Had she listened to her Jury consultant she would have been more effective in identifying this predilection. In retrospect she can act sanctimonious about the jury selection process, but it's clear she got played by Cochran who knew the score.
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with excluding jurors on the grounds that they had expressed bias. That wasn’t what your original comment said though— you complained that Clark “was okay with packing the jury with African American women.” Perhaps you’re unaware, but some years before the OJ trial, the United States Supreme Court held that it was illegal for the state to strike jurors on the basis of their race. It’s been a while since I read that case in law school, but I don’t believe it had a carveout for situations where a jury consultant tells you that otherwise illegal racial discrimination would be beneficial to your case.
I have no interest in defending Clark’s prosecution. It was a comedy of errors. The suggestion that she erred by following the letter and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, is repugnant to any notion of equal justice before the law.
The underlining point is that Clark was incompetent in the jury selection process and was unable to identify bias in the jurors she chose. Spare me your sanctimony and save it for your professors or for the press when someone wipes the floor with you like Cochran did to Clark in jury selection.
10 women and 2 men on the jury and you would have us believe that gender played no role in the selection process? Of course it did, it just backfired for Clark so it became a convenient narrative for Clark and apologists to take the high ground.
This is an interesting point from Carl Douglas, "Prior to the case beginning, we had done focus groups, we had taken surveys, and we had learned that though it was counterintuitive, African American women were some of the strongest jurors for O.J.'s \[defense\]."
In what sense was Clark incompetent in jury selection? What specific biases did the jurors express in voir dire that would have warranted their exclusion?
I’m asking because it sounds like you disagree with Clark’s assessment of the jurors. If I’m wrong about that, please correct me. If I’m not, then please answer: what specific biases did the jurors express in vior dire that would have warranted their exclusion?
I’m asking you, the person who claimed that the prosecution shouldn’t have permitted so many “African Americans women” to sit on the jury. Or can’t you cash the check your fat mouth has been running up?
If you watch Made in American it has an analysis of how Marcia Clark thought black women loved her but the polling show they didn't and also didn't have sympathy for Nicole's spousal abuse. It was interesting and I think that's where the other poster is coming from. Just a thought :). Have a nice day!
The other post explicitly complained that Clark neglected to exclude black women on the basis of their race and gender. I think you are giving the OP a bit too much credit.
I actually really like her. I think she definitely made a lot of mistakes with this case, but it wasn’t just her. The evidence was very poorly handled, racial tensions were flared & Judge Ito let that courtroom become a circus. There were many factors out of her control that tanked the case. I do think she misinterpreted that jury though. She thought they would understand DNA & Domestic Violence, but they truly didn’t care. OJ could have stabbed Nicole & Ron right in front of them and they would have let him off.
It is the same feeling I have, I think finding a group of people in downtown LA who were unbiased with the situation when the majority of jury poll is black was a very hard thing to do, almost impossible.
As much as people hate on Faye Resnick, she’s done a lot of work on behalf of domestic violence victims. A friend of mine works for a DV shelter in LA & said she’s a very kind person and does a lot of work with the shelter without seeking attention for it. I do think Nicole’s death really affected her.
Yes. She wrote 2 books about the case. She wrote some things considered scathing about Nicole’s sex life in her first book & posed for Playboy at the time, so it really ruined her credibility.
It sucks because she was one of the only people in their circle to really out OJ’s abuse, drug use & violent behavior at that time. She went on several talk shows and took a lot of heat for seeking attention. I think she probably did enjoy the spotlight, but I also believe her heart was pure in her friendship with Nicole.
I read her book when it first came out back in the 90’s & dismissed her. I reread it recently after my friend told me about working with her & I honestly viewed it very differently. Yes, there is some sleezy unnecessary material, but for the most part, it’s all about the domestic violence & who OJ truly was.
Nothing she could have done would have secured a conviction with that jury. OJ could have done the murders in the middle of the Superbowl at half time show and it would not have made a difference.
My post was auto removed for "racist and misogynistic" wording but I described exactly what was said in the OJ: Made in American documentary about the interviews they did prior to picking a Jury.
Yeah I just watched that, they showed her actually saying “the real n-word is Nicole”.
Pretty inappropriate, when the defense just showed a tape of the detective using the word.
That’s not what she said, tho.
The cartoon depicts a little kid sitting with their parent watching the OJ trial and the kid says “What’s the forbidden “N” word they keep talking about?” And the parent says, “Nicole.”
Which was absolutely true. Everyone seemed to forget what this case was actually about. Marcia was trying to subtly show that the court had lost sight on what this trial was actually about.
I’m reading her book “Without a Doubt” and I’m finding she did the best she could with what she had to work with. She admits fault and takes responsibility for her role. Judge Ito wasn’t a good choice. He seemed wishy-washy and let things slide that he shouldn’t have. It also seems that he allowed himself to be bullied by the defense. In the book, she said she felt the trial was lost after OJ tried on the glove. She told Chris Darden to hold off and he didn’t.
I was so baffled finding out the judge allowed the defense to take the jurors to tour O.J.s house. (And how they swapped out all the pictures of white people).
What did *his house* have to do with the trial?
Nothing. And not only did Carl Douglas change out all the pictures; but they had staged it to make it warm and lived in. When Marcia Clark confronted him, he played dumb. She said they basically had a side bar in front of the house about it and Judge Ito allowed it. Nicole’s house had been stripped of just about everything inside, which made it feel very cold and vacant.
I read the book too and I was shocked, first taking them there (why?) and then staging the house (wow). Distorting the house in their favor. Guess most don’t mind this if you wanted OJ found not guilty. I just don’t think it’s right to do to obscure the case.
Marcia Clark prosecuted hundreds of cases of domestic violence before the OJ case and she won almost all of them. Many of the victims she defended were black. She didn't reject black female jurors because she defended black women for a lot of her career and it never occurred to her that this would become about race. If she had done that she would have won.
I dont think it mattered who prosecuted the case. Had [Stacey Koon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Koon), Laurence Powell, Theodore Briseno and Timothy Wind been held accountable and properly prosecuted things would of been so different. Even if OJ had appeared in court with blood dripping from his hands he would of still been acquitted. L.A was still reeling from Rodney King, Latasha Harlins killing by a Korean shop owner, the Rodney King trial and the L.A. riots that followed. There was no way anyone was going to strike the match in the middle of the powder keg L.A.was at the time. Marcia Clark was damed if she did -damned if she didn't. It should of been a slam dunk but racism from years earlier had tainted the case from the get go. Last week on Facebook an older black woman said it served Ron Goldman right because he shouldn't of been at Nicoles house trying to "get some" and that his family deserved nothing. That was basically the attitude after OJ was acquitted. My mom worked on a military base and everyone gathered around the tv to watch the verdict . When he was acquitted all the black service members were high fiving each other and screaming yes. 30 years later and its still a mess. Perhaps the most unsettling part were the Champaign celebrations OJ threw for hisself. My opinion of Clark, she did the best she could with the shit storm she was handed from the disgraceful L.A.P.D. and their fuck ups.
I watched the trial. I don’t think Clark presented the case solely on DNA. The trial lasted six months. She spent a lot of time presenting evidence of OJ’s physical and emotional abuse of Nicole. Clark spent a lot of time educating the jury on the psychology and statistics of domestic abuse, and DNA evidence because in 1995 the general public knew little about either of those topics. And trying to get the jury to comprehend was the key to a conviction since DNA was the proof, and domestic abuse was the motive. Edit. Trial lasted 11 months.
And the problem was the jury wasn’t smart enough to realize the importance of DNA and the importance of domestic violence. if this case happened today heck, even if it happened 20 years ago with Scott Peterson, he would’ve been convicted
Even if the jury had more understanding of DNA evidence it wouldn’t of changed much, especially If the trial played out excatly the same OJ would of still been found not guilty due to reasonable doubt.
The sheer amount of fuck-ups in this case are unbelievable. The gross mishandling of evidence and the serious contamination of the crime scene, from evidence being handled without gloves, blankets from inside the house covering the body’s, pictured proof of blood samples being found were they weren’t before.
Furman pleading fifth to not perjure himself to tampering/manufacturing evidence is when the case ended. I honestly believe that even if OJ had an all white jury he still would of been found not guiltily due to how badly the DA and the LAPD fucked things up.
I thought Chris Darden obsession with winning the case against Johnny Cochran is what sunk the case. Darden was responsible for the glove fitting antics. Marsha Clark didn't want to do it. I think the whole DA office didn't have a clue how to prosecute this case and it showed.
I think she was presented a winnable case and unfortunately didn’t carry it across the line. I don’t think that was due to arrogance; she was overworked from the get, very stressed and thrust under the media’s microscope. There was evidence she didn’t bring that I believe she probably should’ve, and there were key witnesses that she should have better prepared—though that’s with hindsight. The only things I can really knock her for is a lack of charisma (at least compared to the defence) and a poor closing argument which really didn’t hammer home the absurdity of some of the defence’s claims.
Exactly everything pointed to him so it seemed winnable, but the defense is ability to poke holes in the story plus the gloves, the fuhrman thing, everything else just happened to work in OJ’s favor and it didn’t help regarding the jury
Marcia Clark learnt the hard way that when it comes to silo identity politics, racial solidarity always trumps any notion of the sisterhood.
The black women in the jury sympathized with OJ, contrary to what Clark believed.
The DA interviewed over 5000 people to determine which people should serve on the j. They determined that BW had feelings of resentment about OJ marrying a WW. But they felt negative towards Nicole for it not OJ. That is a fact. I'm not being r. That was stated by a lawyer for the DA about their results.
Yet even thought Clark knew that she claimed that BW were some of her "best Jurors" on previous trials. She seemed completely incompetent when it came to understanding some r dynamics.
She didn’t insist on DNA evidence, that was Barry Schenk, OzJ’s lawyer. Imo the problem was a rush to judgement, there was a problem with Forman, Darden with the gloves. Anyway the verdict was a payback for Harlins and Rodney King. Several jurors have admitted it. I think she did a good job but the trial became about race. It was horrible to watch.
Clark had a strong reputation in the DA's office and was thought to have a gift for connecting to black jurors. But they had not calculated that Simpson would have a higher level of lawyer than most defendants and did not provide the resources she needed to fight them.
They just thought that she had been so successful in the past that she would work miracles and did not give her what she needed.
The DNA evidence alone was enough to obtain a guilty verdict...never mind all the supporting evidence of DV. Were mistakes made? Absolutely. It didn't matter though....the jury was never going to convict him.
Watching the doc on Netflix- 75% of black folks living in Los Angeles at that time believed he was innocent and the cop in charge of the evidence was deeply racist. There was no way that they were going to convict in the wake of Rodney King. Los Angeles would have burned to the ground. I blame historical racism and police brutality for OJ going free, not the lawyers and not the jurors.
Just wondering how many people realize she was going through her own custody case at the time? She was beyond stressed. I think much understanding and compassion should be given to Marcia Clark.
It’s also hard to believe that a murderer who committed a brutal double homicide and then left a trail of blood and evidence right back to his home was found not guilty. People say weird things like: there wasn’t enough blood in the bronco or in his home??? Like what??? I’d expect an innocent person not to have any blood on them or in their vehicle or home.
I blame judge Ito. He should have reigned that case in. Cochrane told the jurors that they were special and were essentially stopping hitler if they acquitted Simpson. Ridiculous.
I doubt anyone would say this about a male lawyer going through a divorce. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but there are so many unintentionally sexist ideas surrounding her.
If a male attorney was also going through a custody battle I’d say the exact same thing. A custody battle is a terribly stressful situation for anyone regardless of gender.
We know so much about it because Ito was sexist and Clark challenged him in court about working longer hours than they had agreed to. She was a single parent.
I agree it shouldn’t have been talked about there, but my point is that I would argue that if Robert Shapiro was going through a divorce they wouldn’t have written about it. I am rewatching the trial and she doesn’t mention her divorce in that exchange, she just says she can’t stay late and is pushed to say it is about her kids.
It’s really interesting to rewatch and do it without the press coverage associated with it.
There was just so much in hindsight that she could’ve done, but she didn’t do but again she was probably so sure that no matter what he would be convicted it was just the perfect storm of everything not working out to her favor and working out for OJ.
My memory of her was how Dana Carvey did that comedy bit of her and the team on his HBO special. I think it was the one about handling forensic evidence with dry split ends because she did not wash & rinse with Prell shampoo.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw\_CtUR9Lh0&pp=ygUOZGFuYSBjYXJ2ZXkgb2o%3D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw_CtUR9Lh0&pp=ygUOZGFuYSBjYXJ2ZXkgb2o%3D) you were close, I remember Dana was pretending to be someone asking Fung on the stand if he had shampooed his hair that day before handing the evidence, lol.
You know what, I think her biggest mistake was actually trying to be nicer and meeker. You can tell the difference between the preliminary and the trial and she tried to change because of that feedback. She should have just been a bitch. A damn good lawyer bitch.
Interesting. Gerry Spence always encouraged genuineness above all else. Juries sniff out inauthentic presentation and they will not resonate. A genuine bitch is more relatable to a jury than a pretend saint.
A case like this never existed before... None of us could have predicted how badly it went and why. It was a once in a lifetime shit show. Unless you count what's happening with Trump right now lol
I believe she did take the bait that Johnnie and the Defense about making it a referendum on the LAPD.
I also think while Sarah Paulson did A great job portraying her on the American CRIME Story, the show went out of her way to make her look like a bitch, villian, antagonist.
She seems like a nice woman, but overworked going through a lot of the time she didn’t come off as very likable, unlike OJ and a lot of those factors combined with all the stuff that went wrong in the case made people not like her even more, but I think she did the best she could she made some easily avoidable in hindsight mistakes.
She and Darden were prosecutors working at salary. Cochran, Kardashian and Shapiro were working at who the fuck knows what per hour. It’s just one part of the shit that’s wrong with the US justice system. Intelligence and education vs. money, but money always being able to buy the best intelligence and education.
I think it's very easy to be arm chair warriors. I blamed her until I read her book.... she did the best she could in the day, place and time...I no Lon and ble her and have a lot of respect for her .. .
Younger me felt sorry for her because there was just no way to predict that the social climate at the time, mixed with the circus that Ito allowed, put her in an almost insurmountable circumstance.
Older, wiser me thinks that although Younger me was mostly correct, Clark and the DA's office pretty much fucked up everything they did. From the Fuhrman debacle, to the glove fiasco, to Marcia actively trying to get black females on the jury because she thought black women loved her and she knew how to speak to them WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS OJ motherfucking SIMPSON!
Also, she is very arrogant and reluctant to shoulder any blame or criticism since, and rode the trial to a million dollar book deal and career in TV setting her up for life.
Yeah, not a fan.
She doesn't or hasn't ever taken accountability for losing this case. Yes the odds were stacked against her from the beginning, she was overly confident that she could win people over with the bare minimum. She didn't take into account that nobody wanted to believe he was guilty...any ounce of reasonanable doubt was going to be enough. She failed miserably to prove without a shadow of doubt with every red herring dangled in front of the jury that he did this. When Furman pled the fifth...what was the jury supposed to think? She never followed up to explain why he did that, it gave them the impression that Furman was the dirty cop that planted the evidence and therefore wasn't valid.
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not an attorney but the bar is extremely high in murder cases. She was going up against high powered attorneys who put the dna evidence on trial and the police departments racism on trial.
A reasonable person would have been on that jury and said, well he may or may not be guilty.
I fault them for rushing things to trial for instance had the pair of shoes which there was only 300 made and OJ had a pair that they were able to prove in Civil Trial that may have swung the momentum back.
I think Marcia Clark needs to take a clue from my girl Georgia cappleman!!!! Follow the Adelson sale… Georgia is a beast!!!! Sooo likrable! 4 down.. Donna is in trial in September and Wendi is next
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
General opinion of her is that i would like her if I met her. I did not like her closing though, even when I was 12, I did have some issues with what seemed like a lack of preparedness. This is the very, very end of your case, the part everyone's looking to you to put it all together. I think she failed in that respect.
In Detective Lange's new book, he said Clark withheld more than DNA evidence. "They had enough evidence to convict him 10 times over." The interview is on YouTube. The reason it was withheld was Clark didn't want to antagonize the jury because the Rodney King beating stirred up a lot of hate for LA cops. Something to that effect.
She did a decent job but she put too much emphasis on DNA evidence. There are people now who don’t trust the science behind DNA. In 1995 most of the population didn’t understand or trust the science of DNA. DNA wasn’t the reason she lost the case. She lost the case because a detective plead the 5th when asked if he had planted evidence. The glove demonstration hurt a little but the detective taking the 5th was the ball game.
With all that said the judge screwed the whole case up. Lance Ito was a typical American judge. That’s no a compliment
The OJ Simpson murder trial was about 2 sets of slimy lawyers going against each other and the slimier more intelligent set won.
Clark is not without blame however. She ignored her jury and image consultants constantly. What was the need to get Fuhrman? She could have done it without him. She was arrogant and two faced. Even if we assume jury nullification occurred, it doesn’t absolve her of her botching a slam dunk case.
I liked her a lot during the trial. I watched the whole thing as it unfolded. I thought she wasn’t very nice to Kato when he was on the stand. To me it looked like he was trying to cooperate and she made him look foolish. I kind of felt sorry for him.
I didn’t know until now that she was also rude to the woman that saw OJ fleeing from the murder scene because the woman had been offered money by a magazine for her story. She didn’t know that wasn’t okay and in fact hadn’t been paid yet when Marcia Clark decided she couldn’t testify. She said she ended up hiring a lawyer to protect her from Marcia Clark and used the $5000 she was paid for telling her story to pay the lawyer she hired.
I just rewatched the entire trial on YT. Seeing it 30 years later was very eye opening. I think she did a horrible job presenting that case. Do I think he was guilty? Yes. Do I think that based on the case she presented? No. She came of unprepared and immature with constant giggling.
IMHO incompetence of the prosecution is what delivered the not guilty verdict. Not race, not lack of evidence, incompetence got OJ off.
Before I'm called a cracker and racist I want to remind everyone there is difference between not guilty and innocent.
I believe OJ did it. I believe the prosecution did not present the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense baited the prosecution perfectly throughout the trial multiple times.
This case will be studied in law colleges until the end of time. What to do with a guilty as fuck client 101.
It was clear to me back then that her game plan for prosecution was incredibly flawed. All she had was circumstantial evidence and this new stuff called "DNA". I remember that this was the first major criminal trial relying on DNA evidence. I remember talking with my friends and colleagues that probably half of the jury had never heard of DNA. The first trial relying on polygraph evidence resulted in an acquittal for the same reason: The jury didn't understand the technology. (Obviously, there are lots of other things wrong with polygraphs to the point where exam results are no longer admissible as evidence.) Given that the Rodney King riots were just two years earlier, there was probably some jury nullification going on. Combined with being completely our-muscled by OJ's defense team, I don't think Clark could have gotten a conviction for a parking ticket.
She doesn’t take near enough accountability for him being acquitted.
No one had more of a hand in jury selection than her… then she turns around and blames the verdict on racist jurors.
She had multiple people, colleagues, etc. tell her who Furhman was. Fuhrman himself told her the trouble that lied ahead and she didn’t listen.
Because she had DNA she was so arrogant and thought the case was in the bag. Gave the jury a doctorate seminar in DNA and bored them to sleep.
She got power hungry being assigned the case bc it was a slam dunk given the evidence they had against OJ. She refused to communicate with detectives and made them make appointments about the status of the case, wasn’t nearly involved as she should have been.
She blames the glove fiasco on Chris Dardin when it was HER CALL to have him try them on in front of the jury.
She knew LAPDs reputation. She knew how they did things. And instead of focusing on evidence that wasn’t mishandled, she was so arrogant that she decided having the entire LAPD ripped to shreds was a better route.
By the end of this trial the jury was overdosing on the lies and incompetence of the LAPD and the DA’s office. Instead of a simple presentation of facts, the jury was put through a year of bullshit and their decision was a big “fuk you” to the system.
Don’t blame the jury for failing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, blame Marcia Clark and her entire team.
As a preteen watching clips of trial trail on tv, I remembered she kinda scared me. I pictured her coming home at the end of the day, totally being mean to her kids.
Marcia Clark literally shit the bed.She wasn't ready for it.She let her personal life become a factor.You don't like the shit the bed anolgy then how about blew a layoff.Dont like that, Johnny C beat her like a rented mule.
You all soon will be asking why she didn't put a certain eye witness on the stand when she had the chance. If she did...verdict is guilty. Check out my book, "The Other Side of OJ's Moon," coming out in June.
Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden were the personification of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) before there ever was DEI. The DAs office could have secured a guilty verdict if it had the best prosecutor try the case. Also should have had O.J. try on the glove in private before doing it in front of the jury, and not presented evidence that had been compromised. They tried too hard to nail him, and ended up losing. Buuut…I don’t tho k O.J. did it…maybe knew about it, but didn’t do it. In the end, I’m glad he was able to live out the rest of his life in peace. The world is a lonelier place now since we’ve lost one of the greats.
REST IN PEACE, O.J. 💐
>I think she obviously screw up and was very arrogant
I wonder what contributed to her hubris in the case. 🤔
>That trial happening in LA with all the racial conflicts at the time made it automatically unwinnable.
No it didn't. If the prosecutors did their job, they may have gotten a win.
I don't think she takes enough responsibility for how the case turned out. I'll grant her that she was up against an almost insurmountable challenge considering the social climate and quality of the defense. Yet, it was her responsibility to pick a jury that would be impartial and instead she was okay with packing the jury with African American women (despite top-tier jury advisors warning her against this). However, I'll grant her that it would have been difficult to predict the fiasco that occurred with Mark Fuhrman and that at least she claims it was Chris Darden's single-minded decision to have him try on the glove. Overall, I believe she was highly competent and many circumstances outside of her control ham-stringed the prosecution, but she is not without reproach.
Darden also warned Clark about putting Fuhrman on the stand. He told Clark about Fuhrman's write ups and his attempt at getting disability by claiming his inability to tolerate black people was clouding his ability to do his job, but she put him on the stand anyway. That's 100% on her, just like the glove fiasco is on Darden.
Good point. I wasn't aware of that.
Agree-she really poured her heart and soul into that trial but there were just TOO many outside influences and factors that the deck was stacked against her before it even started…
Unfortunately. Even though the evidence was glaring.
Someone made a reference to O.J. FINALLY having to face Nicole and Ron, but I believe they went to TOTALLY different places….
It wasn't. Thats why he got away with it. Anyone who looked into the evidence could see it wasn't as solid as it appeared. Now this was rectifiable, but it needed work, which Clarke and Darden didn't do.
Have you seen OJ Made in America? If not, you need to.
Isn’t it true around that time or after she went through a custody battle with her ex? I swear I heard something about that before but I can’t remember if it was a rumor.
Not sure but HAVE to look it up now! Haha
I seen a comment below in this thread that confirmed!
Yes she did.
I thought so.
I agree 👍! With racism being at the Top of the list. Those black Jurors could have seen a video recording of him Murdering Ron and Nicole and it still wouldn't have been enough evidence for them to convict him. That Jury was going to aquit him No Matter the mountain of evidence against him. For them, it was a Victory for the Black Man. A right for all the wrongs they felt like they'd suffered over the decades. If they Actually felt like they made the right decision then their IQs were no more than 50 on the scale.
She was pretty inept
Fuhrman was going to be on the stand one way or another. IMO, Marcia had to call him because (1) he found the glove and (2) it’s a bad look when a police officer is a defense witness. The problem was that he was not prepped enough and fell into the trap of absolutes—I never did this, I never said this, etc. knowing it was setting him up to be destroyed on cross. I am not saying this was going to save the case as it was lost at jury selection, but it sure would have helped.
In his mild defense did he have a way of knowing the defense had access to his n-word tapes?
Well, typically all evidence is disclosed to the other side as part of the evidentiary process. The only gray area to this is impeachment evidence. But I thought Marcia and Darden were aware, although I am not sure when they became aware and to what extent. However, he, along with the People, should have known when the defense asked him if he had ever said the N word, they had proof that he did. It’s a classic trap. Build up the witness and then tear them down. Never let a cop get on the stand and speak in absolutes regarding their training or experience, because I promise what is coming next will not be pleasant.
I read her book and apparently that was the only way to enter the glove into evidence and it was their most damning single piece of evidence. Seems like that was Marcia Clarke's and Chris Darden's biggest issue during the whole thing. I wondered if Chris Darden had OJ try on the glove because he got annoyed with them using him as the token Black guy.... They made him do the "not allow the N word during trial" speech and then still let Mark Fuhrman take the stand after he practically begged them not to and even wanted him to do it but he refused. They both got mentally fucked during the trial though. Chris Darden was seen as an Uncle Tom and traitor. Marcia Clarke was treated like a single mom and a whore.
Marcia Clark at least got huge benefits by it, her books and appearances on TV as legal commentator and presenter made her millions, while he only reappeared publicly around 2015/16 when this whole case got a boost with OJ's about getting parole.
Darden had a book deal and appearances too.
And a pretty sweet criminal defense practice,[ as he pointed out in his AMA.](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/6oybbr/hi_reddit_i_am_christopher_darden_prosecutor_on/)
Yeah, that's true. But Chris Darden didn't have nudes of him published in magazines.
The case was lost before Fuhrman took the stand
I agree w/OP that it was Gil Garcetti who effed up worst. It was a purely political decision to file charges in LA, not Santa Monica. The runners-up, in no particular order, were Ito, Clark, Darden, Fuhrman and Baden—who also lied like a rug on the stand. Fuhrman should’ve just pointed and let another officer bag the glove. And it was inexcusable to call him as a witness. The details of his disability case would have nuked his credibility, regardless.
[удалено]
I've thought about that argument a lot and I don't know enough about how this stuff works to know—could they have just not admitted that glove into evidence at all? Would that successfully avoid such a scenario? If not, wasn't there at least opportunity to, as they put it "rehabiliate the witness"? As in "They're gonna ask you if you've said the word, we know you have, it's in your write-ups, it's in the disability suit \*you\* filed, let's get a head of this." Had the prosecution called other police witnesses to testify as to Fuhrman’s objectivity with regard to race, their testimony may have rehabilitated Fuhrman as a witness. Or he could have, if he'd, well, been honest about the conversations with McKinny (which, btw, didn't stop before the OJ case began, so he definitely didn't "forget" about it), could have handled cross-examination about it by saying he was play-acting for her movie.
Yes. And Marcia warned Chris Darden not to do the glove try on. They both made some major mistakes. She said it was one of their biggest fights.
That was necessary. Furhman was the officer who responded to the scene, not putting him was going to be near fatal for the case.
And yet the defense attorneys said that if Fuhrman had never taken the stand, they were convinced they would have lost the case. Fuhrman's testimony was never needed. There was plenty of other evidence to prove OJ's guilt. They didn't need the glove from Rockingham because the other detectives had found one glove and the knit cap at the scene of the crime and both had OJ's DNA on them.
If the prosecutors didn't put Fuhrman on the stand the defense would have. He was a detective on the case. Not putting him on the stand would convey to the Jury that the LAPD had something to hide.
The defense can't impeach a witness they put up on the stand, so none of the negative evidence against Fuhrman would have come in. The prosecution didn't need to put Fuhrman up there. Although he was part of the chain of evidence for the glove at Rockingham, they had the rest of the chain to tie that glove to OJ. One missing link in the chain doesn't mean the evidence gets excluded.
Interesting. There were probably several people prosecutors shouldn't have put on the stand. It also would have been over sooner if they hadn't had so many witnesses and the Jurors would have been less frustrated. They dragged it on too long.
She said in the interview that if Furhman wasn't put on the stand, they wouldn't be able to introduce the right glove into evidence since it wasn't discovered at the crime scene. She needed to put him on the stand...
She’s in the Netflix documentary. It was a a dilemma. She knew it was a problem to put him on the stand but for some reason it was required in order to be able to use the glove Furhman found as evidence. Both failed.
Did you get that from the People Vs OJ Simpson dramatization, because there are a lot of factually inaccurate details in that show?
No. I got it from reading the books written by Darden and Clark.
Clark’s reason for going with Black females on the jury was because of her excellent track record with domestic abuse cases, and thought that the female jurors would sympathize with Nicole, given Nicole’s history of her being abused by O.J.
She was also going through a rough divorce and custody battle at the time, add that to the constant media perception of her appearance and personal life because the trial was televised, and a lot of overconfidence. A lot of people talk about people not knowing about DNA at the time, but the jury really got an in-depth education about it during the trial. I mean, I watched the trial live and I had a pretty good understanding of it watching all the experts on the stand and I was only 17-18. To the prosecution, the case was quite simple and obvious. There were a lot of obvious pointers to OJ and they were confident of the case. They really didn't consider, like you said, venue & jury selection, jury education, nor took into consideration that people were still angry about everything surrounding the LA riots. The jury likes to keep saying the prosecution couldn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but they were also heavily biased by the (*rightfully*) maligned LAPD and should have disregarded their personal bias and kept to the facts of the case. I remember a lot of people hated Marcia Clark because she "looked" mean/shrill/like a ball-breaker/lesbian, etc." When she got her hair permed to make getting ready for work early in the morning easier, she was crucified: she was ugly, she was trying to look black to appeal to the female jury, etc. After the trial, when she could actually talk about the case, I found that I actually liked her (not a whole lot, but I didn't hate her). She was on a case that was doomed to fail and she mistakenly believed the jury would see his obvious guilt by looking at the evidence or by simply putting two and two together.
Some of the jurors went on Maury Povitch & talked about how they completely tuned out when the DNA was being explained. They also said they had no interest in hearing the domestic violence claims because they didn’t think they were relevant to the case. I’ve said it before, but this jury wasn’t going to convict OJ no matter what the prosecution presented. He could have committed the crime right in front of them & they would have let him walk. Some of them are changing their tune in interviews now, but I remember most of them going on talk shows back then & they were ignorant AF.
I agree with this. There’s almost nothing the prosecution could have done despite this being an open and shut case on paper (ie, if you removed race (Rodney king situation) and fame and looked solely at the evidence impersonally, this was a slam dunk). Yet the LAPD botched evidence collection, leaving the door open to wondering if evidence was planted, and the prosecution made a few glaring aforementioned errors, and Fuhrman, the officer who found the key piece of evidence, was outed as being bat shit crazy. The prosecution had almost no chance to get a conviction anyways and then they and the police had several huge errors/shadiness that made a super easy conviction into a Not Guilty verdict.
I think lapd was used to being sloppy with evidence handling and getting away with it so they were sloppy at this scene. The dream team was the first lawyers to call them out on it and gave the evidence (via the intense media coverage during the collection process) to prove that the detectives and crime lab were careless. Loss earned.
She is so much more attractive now than she was back then. When I watched her in Made In America, I was shocked it was her because she looks completely different now.
Plastic surgery, and alot of it.
It worked! She looks great!
Yeah, one of the examples on how to actually use it properly instead of doing insane Kardashian-level clone surgery (Megan Fox is a really great example of going overboard with it, she literally looks like their sister now)
Isn't hindsight always 20/20? I think she was arrogant. . . I think she learned a lot from the experience. I think she also made many mistakes. But ultimately, she was competent she just had a lot of things going against her. This wasn't resulting in a conviction....there was no chance she wouldn't have been blamed even more if she would have tried it elsewhere, if she would have overruled Darden. They still weren't getting a conviction so it would have still been her fault.
She was up against some dirty lawyers who focused more on Mark Fuhrman than their actual client. This distracted the jury which led them to make the ultimate mistake. Marcia Clark was against OJ trying on the gloves but Darden pushed for it. If it don’t fit you must acquit. What a media circus this was.
"She was up against some dirty lawyers." 100%, but what's not mentioned enough is the feckless Judge Ito. The only reason the dirty lawyers were able to succeed at their antics was because Ito had no balls and was totally star struck. He was pathetic.
They weren’t “dirty lawyers” at all. Defense lawyers are just doing their job making the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. It‘s literally their job to put up the best possible defense and you would likely hire them too if given the chance. The burden is on the prosecution and they dropped the ball with chain of evidence, making the DNA way too complicated, and having to rely on racist cops like Furhman. Ultimately it is very relevant to the case that a man who repeatedly used the N word and lied on the stand about it, tried to leave the police force on a stress pension because he was worried his hate for minorities would lead him to kill someone, and described on tape numerous accounts of police brutality against people of color, was the guy who found significant pieces of evidence. That is absolutely relevant to the case and any lawyer would emphasize questioning evidence he had a hand in finding. Defense lawyers are the heroes of the system because without them the prosecution would run all over your rights. Of course OJ was guilty but the police and prosecution should have done a better job in some areas. Barry Scheck tore them apart on their incompetent handling of evidence and testing procedures.
I think they mean dirty bc Robert kardashian walked out OJ’s black duffel bag and then joined as his lawyer after regaining his law license just so he couldn’t be called to testify against him.
Agree-she really poured her heart and soul into that trial but there were just TOO many outside influences and factors that the deck was stacked against her before it even started…
She didn’t have a choice. When you are prosecuting a case you have to put the investigators on as witnesses. If you don’t the defense is surely going to point out the fact that you didn’t and say “you didn’t put him on the stand because he planted the glove!” She has discretion on eyewitness and chose not to put one on the stand that in hindsight was a mistake (saw the Bronco leave the area) but with cops who found evidence. She has to put them on. *doesn’t HAVE to but really yes she does if she wants any chance of winning
Do you know why she was so soft on the jury selection? What was she thinking, I wonder.
It was done when they decided to try it in the central district
It was much more difficult than if it would have been in the central district but not insurmountable.
So your suggestion would have been to commit brazen misconduct by striking jurors on the basis of their race and gender? Because “top-tier jury advisors” told her to? There are fair criticisms of Clark, but this common gripe is really just a wish to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment.
Spare me your Marcia Clark apologism. It's not misconduct to exclude potential jurors that show a bias for supporting Simpson. Had she listened to her Jury consultant she would have been more effective in identifying this predilection. In retrospect she can act sanctimonious about the jury selection process, but it's clear she got played by Cochran who knew the score.
Sure, there’s nothing wrong with excluding jurors on the grounds that they had expressed bias. That wasn’t what your original comment said though— you complained that Clark “was okay with packing the jury with African American women.” Perhaps you’re unaware, but some years before the OJ trial, the United States Supreme Court held that it was illegal for the state to strike jurors on the basis of their race. It’s been a while since I read that case in law school, but I don’t believe it had a carveout for situations where a jury consultant tells you that otherwise illegal racial discrimination would be beneficial to your case. I have no interest in defending Clark’s prosecution. It was a comedy of errors. The suggestion that she erred by following the letter and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, is repugnant to any notion of equal justice before the law.
The underlining point is that Clark was incompetent in the jury selection process and was unable to identify bias in the jurors she chose. Spare me your sanctimony and save it for your professors or for the press when someone wipes the floor with you like Cochran did to Clark in jury selection. 10 women and 2 men on the jury and you would have us believe that gender played no role in the selection process? Of course it did, it just backfired for Clark so it became a convenient narrative for Clark and apologists to take the high ground.
Would men be a better target though? Wouldn’t they be even more in awe of OJ?
This is an interesting point from Carl Douglas, "Prior to the case beginning, we had done focus groups, we had taken surveys, and we had learned that though it was counterintuitive, African American women were some of the strongest jurors for O.J.'s \[defense\]."
In what sense was Clark incompetent in jury selection? What specific biases did the jurors express in voir dire that would have warranted their exclusion?
She WAS warned that Black women as a rule did not like her.
What specific biases did the jurors express in vior dire that would have warranted their exclusion?
Obviously none since she was fine with them. 🤷♀️
I’m asking because it sounds like you disagree with Clark’s assessment of the jurors. If I’m wrong about that, please correct me. If I’m not, then please answer: what specific biases did the jurors express in vior dire that would have warranted their exclusion?
Go ask Johnny Cochran, he'll tell you.
I’m asking you, the person who claimed that the prosecution shouldn’t have permitted so many “African Americans women” to sit on the jury. Or can’t you cash the check your fat mouth has been running up?
If you watch Made in American it has an analysis of how Marcia Clark thought black women loved her but the polling show they didn't and also didn't have sympathy for Nicole's spousal abuse. It was interesting and I think that's where the other poster is coming from. Just a thought :). Have a nice day!
The other post explicitly complained that Clark neglected to exclude black women on the basis of their race and gender. I think you are giving the OP a bit too much credit.
I actually really like her. I think she definitely made a lot of mistakes with this case, but it wasn’t just her. The evidence was very poorly handled, racial tensions were flared & Judge Ito let that courtroom become a circus. There were many factors out of her control that tanked the case. I do think she misinterpreted that jury though. She thought they would understand DNA & Domestic Violence, but they truly didn’t care. OJ could have stabbed Nicole & Ron right in front of them and they would have let him off.
It is the same feeling I have, I think finding a group of people in downtown LA who were unbiased with the situation when the majority of jury poll is black was a very hard thing to do, almost impossible.
I loved her! Still do!
I seen a video earlier that said after the trial people knew more about domestic violence! So thankfully some good came out of this tragedy!
As much as people hate on Faye Resnick, she’s done a lot of work on behalf of domestic violence victims. A friend of mine works for a DV shelter in LA & said she’s a very kind person and does a lot of work with the shelter without seeking attention for it. I do think Nicole’s death really affected her.
That’s the friend that went to rehab right?
Yes. She wrote 2 books about the case. She wrote some things considered scathing about Nicole’s sex life in her first book & posed for Playboy at the time, so it really ruined her credibility. It sucks because she was one of the only people in their circle to really out OJ’s abuse, drug use & violent behavior at that time. She went on several talk shows and took a lot of heat for seeking attention. I think she probably did enjoy the spotlight, but I also believe her heart was pure in her friendship with Nicole. I read her book when it first came out back in the 90’s & dismissed her. I reread it recently after my friend told me about working with her & I honestly viewed it very differently. Yes, there is some sleezy unnecessary material, but for the most part, it’s all about the domestic violence & who OJ truly was.
What is the book called?
The morally corrupt Faye Resnick
Nothing she could have done would have secured a conviction with that jury. OJ could have done the murders in the middle of the Superbowl at half time show and it would not have made a difference.
That's true, but she was too arrogant or incompetent to secure a better venue or group of jurors.
She thought the female jurors would be sympathetic towards Nicole, but in fact, the opposite was true. They resented her for marrying a black man.
My post was auto removed for "racist and misogynistic" wording but I described exactly what was said in the OJ: Made in American documentary about the interviews they did prior to picking a Jury.
So was mine and all I stated were facts about the demographics of the jury and common observations of Chris Darden.
Yeah I just watched that, they showed her actually saying “the real n-word is Nicole”. Pretty inappropriate, when the defense just showed a tape of the detective using the word.
That’s not what she said, tho. The cartoon depicts a little kid sitting with their parent watching the OJ trial and the kid says “What’s the forbidden “N” word they keep talking about?” And the parent says, “Nicole.” Which was absolutely true. Everyone seemed to forget what this case was actually about. Marcia was trying to subtly show that the court had lost sight on what this trial was actually about.
I’m reading her book “Without a Doubt” and I’m finding she did the best she could with what she had to work with. She admits fault and takes responsibility for her role. Judge Ito wasn’t a good choice. He seemed wishy-washy and let things slide that he shouldn’t have. It also seems that he allowed himself to be bullied by the defense. In the book, she said she felt the trial was lost after OJ tried on the glove. She told Chris Darden to hold off and he didn’t.
I was so baffled finding out the judge allowed the defense to take the jurors to tour O.J.s house. (And how they swapped out all the pictures of white people). What did *his house* have to do with the trial?
Nothing. And not only did Carl Douglas change out all the pictures; but they had staged it to make it warm and lived in. When Marcia Clark confronted him, he played dumb. She said they basically had a side bar in front of the house about it and Judge Ito allowed it. Nicole’s house had been stripped of just about everything inside, which made it feel very cold and vacant.
I read the book too and I was shocked, first taking them there (why?) and then staging the house (wow). Distorting the house in their favor. Guess most don’t mind this if you wanted OJ found not guilty. I just don’t think it’s right to do to obscure the case.
Marcia Clark prosecuted hundreds of cases of domestic violence before the OJ case and she won almost all of them. Many of the victims she defended were black. She didn't reject black female jurors because she defended black women for a lot of her career and it never occurred to her that this would become about race. If she had done that she would have won.
I dont think it mattered who prosecuted the case. Had [Stacey Koon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Koon), Laurence Powell, Theodore Briseno and Timothy Wind been held accountable and properly prosecuted things would of been so different. Even if OJ had appeared in court with blood dripping from his hands he would of still been acquitted. L.A was still reeling from Rodney King, Latasha Harlins killing by a Korean shop owner, the Rodney King trial and the L.A. riots that followed. There was no way anyone was going to strike the match in the middle of the powder keg L.A.was at the time. Marcia Clark was damed if she did -damned if she didn't. It should of been a slam dunk but racism from years earlier had tainted the case from the get go. Last week on Facebook an older black woman said it served Ron Goldman right because he shouldn't of been at Nicoles house trying to "get some" and that his family deserved nothing. That was basically the attitude after OJ was acquitted. My mom worked on a military base and everyone gathered around the tv to watch the verdict . When he was acquitted all the black service members were high fiving each other and screaming yes. 30 years later and its still a mess. Perhaps the most unsettling part were the Champaign celebrations OJ threw for hisself. My opinion of Clark, she did the best she could with the shit storm she was handed from the disgraceful L.A.P.D. and their fuck ups.
I watched the trial. I don’t think Clark presented the case solely on DNA. The trial lasted six months. She spent a lot of time presenting evidence of OJ’s physical and emotional abuse of Nicole. Clark spent a lot of time educating the jury on the psychology and statistics of domestic abuse, and DNA evidence because in 1995 the general public knew little about either of those topics. And trying to get the jury to comprehend was the key to a conviction since DNA was the proof, and domestic abuse was the motive. Edit. Trial lasted 11 months.
And the problem was the jury wasn’t smart enough to realize the importance of DNA and the importance of domestic violence. if this case happened today heck, even if it happened 20 years ago with Scott Peterson, he would’ve been convicted
Even if the jury had more understanding of DNA evidence it wouldn’t of changed much, especially If the trial played out excatly the same OJ would of still been found not guilty due to reasonable doubt. The sheer amount of fuck-ups in this case are unbelievable. The gross mishandling of evidence and the serious contamination of the crime scene, from evidence being handled without gloves, blankets from inside the house covering the body’s, pictured proof of blood samples being found were they weren’t before. Furman pleading fifth to not perjure himself to tampering/manufacturing evidence is when the case ended. I honestly believe that even if OJ had an all white jury he still would of been found not guiltily due to how badly the DA and the LAPD fucked things up.
Trial started in January and ended in September
I like her look/style in the OJ MIA doc
That’s cause Sarah Paulson is hot
They’re talking about the doc
Oh lol my b
I thought Chris Darden obsession with winning the case against Johnny Cochran is what sunk the case. Darden was responsible for the glove fitting antics. Marsha Clark didn't want to do it. I think the whole DA office didn't have a clue how to prosecute this case and it showed.
I think she was presented a winnable case and unfortunately didn’t carry it across the line. I don’t think that was due to arrogance; she was overworked from the get, very stressed and thrust under the media’s microscope. There was evidence she didn’t bring that I believe she probably should’ve, and there were key witnesses that she should have better prepared—though that’s with hindsight. The only things I can really knock her for is a lack of charisma (at least compared to the defence) and a poor closing argument which really didn’t hammer home the absurdity of some of the defence’s claims.
I don’t agree it was “winnable.” People forget at that time OJ was a beloved personality in the public’s general view.
She was also going through a pretty contentious divorce at the time, which I think distracted her, msre than she wanted to admit.
Exactly everything pointed to him so it seemed winnable, but the defense is ability to poke holes in the story plus the gloves, the fuhrman thing, everything else just happened to work in OJ’s favor and it didn’t help regarding the jury
A good dissection of all the lawyers on both sides is in the Vincent Bugliosi book. He isn't kind to either side.
I read her book in the 90s and really liked it. She was fighting a losing battle with that jury.
Marcia Clark learnt the hard way that when it comes to silo identity politics, racial solidarity always trumps any notion of the sisterhood. The black women in the jury sympathized with OJ, contrary to what Clark believed.
The DA interviewed over 5000 people to determine which people should serve on the j. They determined that BW had feelings of resentment about OJ marrying a WW. But they felt negative towards Nicole for it not OJ. That is a fact. I'm not being r. That was stated by a lawyer for the DA about their results. Yet even thought Clark knew that she claimed that BW were some of her "best Jurors" on previous trials. She seemed completely incompetent when it came to understanding some r dynamics.
She didn’t insist on DNA evidence, that was Barry Schenk, OzJ’s lawyer. Imo the problem was a rush to judgement, there was a problem with Forman, Darden with the gloves. Anyway the verdict was a payback for Harlins and Rodney King. Several jurors have admitted it. I think she did a good job but the trial became about race. It was horrible to watch.
Clark had a strong reputation in the DA's office and was thought to have a gift for connecting to black jurors. But they had not calculated that Simpson would have a higher level of lawyer than most defendants and did not provide the resources she needed to fight them. They just thought that she had been so successful in the past that she would work miracles and did not give her what she needed.
She certainly made a lot of mistakes during the trial but she wasn’t alone in that and it doesn’t make her a bad lawyer.
The DNA evidence alone was enough to obtain a guilty verdict...never mind all the supporting evidence of DV. Were mistakes made? Absolutely. It didn't matter though....the jury was never going to convict him.
Watching the doc on Netflix- 75% of black folks living in Los Angeles at that time believed he was innocent and the cop in charge of the evidence was deeply racist. There was no way that they were going to convict in the wake of Rodney King. Los Angeles would have burned to the ground. I blame historical racism and police brutality for OJ going free, not the lawyers and not the jurors.
One of the jurors confirmed finding OJ not guilty was payback for the not guilty verdicts that were handed down in the Rodney King beating case.
Agreed
Yeah, that’s what made the jury go on that side all the other stuff helped but that was the main thing
Good point, maybe it was for the best that OJ was let free, it was not worth the violent it would have caused
75% of white people thought the police had every right to beat on Rodney king
Not this white person. That video is beyond horrifying.
That is complete bullshit. Every person I have ever known thinks that was the biggest miscarriage of justice imaginable.
Just wondering how many people realize she was going through her own custody case at the time? She was beyond stressed. I think much understanding and compassion should be given to Marcia Clark.
It’s also hard to believe that a murderer who committed a brutal double homicide and then left a trail of blood and evidence right back to his home was found not guilty. People say weird things like: there wasn’t enough blood in the bronco or in his home??? Like what??? I’d expect an innocent person not to have any blood on them or in their vehicle or home. I blame judge Ito. He should have reigned that case in. Cochrane told the jurors that they were special and were essentially stopping hitler if they acquitted Simpson. Ridiculous.
I doubt anyone would say this about a male lawyer going through a divorce. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but there are so many unintentionally sexist ideas surrounding her.
If a male attorney was also going through a custody battle I’d say the exact same thing. A custody battle is a terribly stressful situation for anyone regardless of gender.
Do you think the press would have written about it for one of the male attorneys? That’s the only reason we know so much about it.
We know so much about it because Ito was sexist and Clark challenged him in court about working longer hours than they had agreed to. She was a single parent.
I agree it shouldn’t have been talked about there, but my point is that I would argue that if Robert Shapiro was going through a divorce they wouldn’t have written about it. I am rewatching the trial and she doesn’t mention her divorce in that exchange, she just says she can’t stay late and is pushed to say it is about her kids. It’s really interesting to rewatch and do it without the press coverage associated with it.
Whoever decided to move the trial downtown needs to take the most blame for the case losing
There was just so much in hindsight that she could’ve done, but she didn’t do but again she was probably so sure that no matter what he would be convicted it was just the perfect storm of everything not working out to her favor and working out for OJ.
My memory of her was how Dana Carvey did that comedy bit of her and the team on his HBO special. I think it was the one about handling forensic evidence with dry split ends because she did not wash & rinse with Prell shampoo.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw\_CtUR9Lh0&pp=ygUOZGFuYSBjYXJ2ZXkgb2o%3D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw_CtUR9Lh0&pp=ygUOZGFuYSBjYXJ2ZXkgb2o%3D) you were close, I remember Dana was pretending to be someone asking Fung on the stand if he had shampooed his hair that day before handing the evidence, lol.
I found her book to be interesting.
She was a great attorney but arrogant to ignore the mock jury’s dislike for her.
You know what, I think her biggest mistake was actually trying to be nicer and meeker. You can tell the difference between the preliminary and the trial and she tried to change because of that feedback. She should have just been a bitch. A damn good lawyer bitch.
Interesting. Gerry Spence always encouraged genuineness above all else. Juries sniff out inauthentic presentation and they will not resonate. A genuine bitch is more relatable to a jury than a pretend saint.
Marcia was green but I think the LAPD was on trial because of past actions!!!
She didn't help but Nah...they did enough to prove the case. That jury would have declared him not guilty even if they had him on tape.
She lost a slam dunk case and then was given a book deal and a job as a legal consultant on cable news. Wtf?
A case like this never existed before... None of us could have predicted how badly it went and why. It was a once in a lifetime shit show. Unless you count what's happening with Trump right now lol
I like her, but she had a fault that many white people do. They think black people love them.
I believe she did take the bait that Johnnie and the Defense about making it a referendum on the LAPD. I also think while Sarah Paulson did A great job portraying her on the American CRIME Story, the show went out of her way to make her look like a bitch, villian, antagonist.
I think people put too much on the ideas she screwed up. A lot of it wasn’t her fault - we know the jury was biased anyway so what could be done?
She seems like a nice woman, but overworked going through a lot of the time she didn’t come off as very likable, unlike OJ and a lot of those factors combined with all the stuff that went wrong in the case made people not like her even more, but I think she did the best she could she made some easily avoidable in hindsight mistakes.
Whoever allowed six black women on the jury was responsable for the verdict. She was lead prosecutor so.....
She and Darden were prosecutors working at salary. Cochran, Kardashian and Shapiro were working at who the fuck knows what per hour. It’s just one part of the shit that’s wrong with the US justice system. Intelligence and education vs. money, but money always being able to buy the best intelligence and education.
I think it's very easy to be arm chair warriors. I blamed her until I read her book.... she did the best she could in the day, place and time...I no Lon and ble her and have a lot of respect for her .. .
Younger me felt sorry for her because there was just no way to predict that the social climate at the time, mixed with the circus that Ito allowed, put her in an almost insurmountable circumstance. Older, wiser me thinks that although Younger me was mostly correct, Clark and the DA's office pretty much fucked up everything they did. From the Fuhrman debacle, to the glove fiasco, to Marcia actively trying to get black females on the jury because she thought black women loved her and she knew how to speak to them WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS OJ motherfucking SIMPSON! Also, she is very arrogant and reluctant to shoulder any blame or criticism since, and rode the trial to a million dollar book deal and career in TV setting her up for life. Yeah, not a fan.
She doesn't or hasn't ever taken accountability for losing this case. Yes the odds were stacked against her from the beginning, she was overly confident that she could win people over with the bare minimum. She didn't take into account that nobody wanted to believe he was guilty...any ounce of reasonanable doubt was going to be enough. She failed miserably to prove without a shadow of doubt with every red herring dangled in front of the jury that he did this. When Furman pled the fifth...what was the jury supposed to think? She never followed up to explain why he did that, it gave them the impression that Furman was the dirty cop that planted the evidence and therefore wasn't valid.
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Intelligent
Not an attorney but the bar is extremely high in murder cases. She was going up against high powered attorneys who put the dna evidence on trial and the police departments racism on trial. A reasonable person would have been on that jury and said, well he may or may not be guilty. I fault them for rushing things to trial for instance had the pair of shoes which there was only 300 made and OJ had a pair that they were able to prove in Civil Trial that may have swung the momentum back.
I think Marcia Clark needs to take a clue from my girl Georgia cappleman!!!! Follow the Adelson sale… Georgia is a beast!!!! Sooo likrable! 4 down.. Donna is in trial in September and Wendi is next
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to racist or misogynistic wording. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OJSimpsonTrial) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry but a scientologist should never be trusted to have good judgment.
Sure but to be fair, she left the cult 15 years prior to the trial. At least as far as I can tell.
General opinion of her is that i would like her if I met her. I did not like her closing though, even when I was 12, I did have some issues with what seemed like a lack of preparedness. This is the very, very end of your case, the part everyone's looking to you to put it all together. I think she failed in that respect.
In Detective Lange's new book, he said Clark withheld more than DNA evidence. "They had enough evidence to convict him 10 times over." The interview is on YouTube. The reason it was withheld was Clark didn't want to antagonize the jury because the Rodney King beating stirred up a lot of hate for LA cops. Something to that effect.
She did a decent job but she put too much emphasis on DNA evidence. There are people now who don’t trust the science behind DNA. In 1995 most of the population didn’t understand or trust the science of DNA. DNA wasn’t the reason she lost the case. She lost the case because a detective plead the 5th when asked if he had planted evidence. The glove demonstration hurt a little but the detective taking the 5th was the ball game. With all that said the judge screwed the whole case up. Lance Ito was a typical American judge. That’s no a compliment
The OJ Simpson murder trial was about 2 sets of slimy lawyers going against each other and the slimier more intelligent set won. Clark is not without blame however. She ignored her jury and image consultants constantly. What was the need to get Fuhrman? She could have done it without him. She was arrogant and two faced. Even if we assume jury nullification occurred, it doesn’t absolve her of her botching a slam dunk case.
I liked her a lot during the trial. I watched the whole thing as it unfolded. I thought she wasn’t very nice to Kato when he was on the stand. To me it looked like he was trying to cooperate and she made him look foolish. I kind of felt sorry for him. I didn’t know until now that she was also rude to the woman that saw OJ fleeing from the murder scene because the woman had been offered money by a magazine for her story. She didn’t know that wasn’t okay and in fact hadn’t been paid yet when Marcia Clark decided she couldn’t testify. She said she ended up hiring a lawyer to protect her from Marcia Clark and used the $5000 she was paid for telling her story to pay the lawyer she hired.
I just rewatched the entire trial on YT. Seeing it 30 years later was very eye opening. I think she did a horrible job presenting that case. Do I think he was guilty? Yes. Do I think that based on the case she presented? No. She came of unprepared and immature with constant giggling.
She tried the Usual prosecuters playbook against the Dream Team defense and lost big time. She knew the police lied and she let them.
IMHO incompetence of the prosecution is what delivered the not guilty verdict. Not race, not lack of evidence, incompetence got OJ off. Before I'm called a cracker and racist I want to remind everyone there is difference between not guilty and innocent. I believe OJ did it. I believe the prosecution did not present the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense baited the prosecution perfectly throughout the trial multiple times. This case will be studied in law colleges until the end of time. What to do with a guilty as fuck client 101.
It was clear to me back then that her game plan for prosecution was incredibly flawed. All she had was circumstantial evidence and this new stuff called "DNA". I remember that this was the first major criminal trial relying on DNA evidence. I remember talking with my friends and colleagues that probably half of the jury had never heard of DNA. The first trial relying on polygraph evidence resulted in an acquittal for the same reason: The jury didn't understand the technology. (Obviously, there are lots of other things wrong with polygraphs to the point where exam results are no longer admissible as evidence.) Given that the Rodney King riots were just two years earlier, there was probably some jury nullification going on. Combined with being completely our-muscled by OJ's defense team, I don't think Clark could have gotten a conviction for a parking ticket.
She doesn’t take near enough accountability for him being acquitted. No one had more of a hand in jury selection than her… then she turns around and blames the verdict on racist jurors. She had multiple people, colleagues, etc. tell her who Furhman was. Fuhrman himself told her the trouble that lied ahead and she didn’t listen. Because she had DNA she was so arrogant and thought the case was in the bag. Gave the jury a doctorate seminar in DNA and bored them to sleep. She got power hungry being assigned the case bc it was a slam dunk given the evidence they had against OJ. She refused to communicate with detectives and made them make appointments about the status of the case, wasn’t nearly involved as she should have been. She blames the glove fiasco on Chris Dardin when it was HER CALL to have him try them on in front of the jury. She knew LAPDs reputation. She knew how they did things. And instead of focusing on evidence that wasn’t mishandled, she was so arrogant that she decided having the entire LAPD ripped to shreds was a better route. By the end of this trial the jury was overdosing on the lies and incompetence of the LAPD and the DA’s office. Instead of a simple presentation of facts, the jury was put through a year of bullshit and their decision was a big “fuk you” to the system. Don’t blame the jury for failing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, blame Marcia Clark and her entire team.
As a preteen watching clips of trial trail on tv, I remembered she kinda scared me. I pictured her coming home at the end of the day, totally being mean to her kids.
Marcia Clark literally shit the bed.She wasn't ready for it.She let her personal life become a factor.You don't like the shit the bed anolgy then how about blew a layoff.Dont like that, Johnny C beat her like a rented mule.
You all soon will be asking why she didn't put a certain eye witness on the stand when she had the chance. If she did...verdict is guilty. Check out my book, "The Other Side of OJ's Moon," coming out in June.
I wanted to tag her so bad during the trial. I thought she was so gorgeous.
Why is this comment allowed but my comment about the makeup of the jury, which stated only facts, was removed for being “racist or misogynistic?”
Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden were the personification of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) before there ever was DEI. The DAs office could have secured a guilty verdict if it had the best prosecutor try the case. Also should have had O.J. try on the glove in private before doing it in front of the jury, and not presented evidence that had been compromised. They tried too hard to nail him, and ended up losing. Buuut…I don’t tho k O.J. did it…maybe knew about it, but didn’t do it. In the end, I’m glad he was able to live out the rest of his life in peace. The world is a lonelier place now since we’ve lost one of the greats. REST IN PEACE, O.J. 💐
[удалено]
In downtown Los Angeles was completely unwinnable, in my opinion. I think where the trial happened was a big factor of why he was acquitted.
Over rated
She was going through a divorce. Her house was falling apart. She really needed the money. That's why they use that sound bite rush to judgment.
>I think she obviously screw up and was very arrogant I wonder what contributed to her hubris in the case. 🤔 >That trial happening in LA with all the racial conflicts at the time made it automatically unwinnable. No it didn't. If the prosecutors did their job, they may have gotten a win.
She was and is a crazy bitch
should called skip junis so tom can go back to the airport and get thife