“If I had been on the OJ jury, I’d like to think I’d have voted not guilty.”
_______
Well, that about says it all, doesn’t it?
Look, you have an utter misunderstanding of the procedural framework which allowed that little legal cheap shot by the esteemed Dean Uelmen to occur. He took advantage of a procedural ruling by the court, as well as his foreknowledge that the officer would “take the 5th” as to AND AND ALL questions asked outside of the jury’s presence at that juncture. Had he asked him “did you kidnap the Lindbergh baby” the answer woulld have been the same.
You also are apparently unaware that this exchange took place OUTSIDE OF THE JURY’S PRESENCE, thus it had no impact on the case, unless the jurors disobeyed the court’s order and used evidence they heard outside the courtroom, saw on t.v., etc. Read this, maybe it will help you understand.
“On the advice of his counsel, Fuhrman said he would invoke the 5th amendment on any question related to the Simpson case.”
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-07/news/mn-43219_1_detective-mark-fuhrman
As to your statement that you would have voted n.g., and your stated reason, you again misunderstand. EVEN IF a jury had heard that exchange, they would have been instructed to draw no inference from the invocation of the privilege. So you, being an honest juror would have followed the court’s instruction, and followed the law, and convicted. Unless you were like the 12 who actually heard the case, and acquitted for reasons having nothing to do with the evidence.
That instruction applies to defendants' use of the Fifth, not to that of rogue cops acting as witnesses. And, in any case, "instructions" are made to be disobeyed (see below).
So you, being an honest juror would have followed the court’s instruction, and followed the law, and convicted.
A proper juror comes to his own conclusion. Independently of the court. Independently of the law. A juror can find the law guilty, if he feels it is appropriate. If a juror thinks he's being treated as a mushroom, it is his civic duty to give the prosecution a fatal case of Amanita phalloides.
Unless you were like the 12 who actually heard the case, and acquitted for reasons having nothing to do with the evidence.
The jury, as is their role, was looking for reasonable doubt. The prosecution had OJ cold. OJ was almost certainly guilty, and should have been convicted, based on untainted evidence. Except for one thing: what if the "evidence" was tainted? What if the cops tampered with the evidence? Detective Fuhrman in effect admitted that they did so tamper. Enter reasonable doubt.
But other defendants in other cases might actually be innocent, yet have less skilled lawyers than OJ. Hence, the need to punish testilying by springing defendants, guilty or not, wherever it is employed.