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.
You don’t get it, and you won’t get it. You said that “bombshell” of yours blew the case. The jury never heard the “bombshell” of yours, see? The “bombshell” occurred outside the jury’s presence, but you didn’t know that. In addition, your statement about the 5th amendment is also wrong.
Are you familiar with California Jury Instructions, either CALJIC or CALCRIM (they use CALCRIM now, but I believe CALJIC was in use at the time of the trial). If not, do your research and look up the instruction having to do with “jury to draw no inference from invocation of a privilege.” Applies to all witnesses. You are just wrong on this. Again, makes no difference as the JURY didn’t hear the exchange.
I think you’ve watched a good deal of TV on this case, but tv is no substitute for experience.