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.
That in itself was a miscarriage of justice. Judge Ito was an incompetent boob, even if following accepted procedure. If I'm on the jury, and I suspect stuff is being kept from me, I give the benefit of the doubt to the defense! Don't confuse me with facts I can't verify as such!
In addition, your statement about the 5th amendment is also wrong.
Really? Detective Fuhrman was not on trial (yet). He was taking the Fifth regarding OJ, not regarding his own miserable case. The jury was eminently justified in concluding from his taking the Fifth that the prosecution's case against OJ was fatally tainted.
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).
LOL! As if I give a rat's ass about the People of California or their silly jury rules! California is an open sore upon the United States!
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.
It applies only to the question of whether a witness is guilty or innocent, not to whether the witness's testimony is true or false with respect to a defendant's case. If a copper takes the Fifth regarding a case, whatever evidence he has against a defendant in that case should be disregarded.
Again, makes no difference as the JURY didn’t hear the exchange.
Doesn't matter. The jury didn't see it (they should have), but, reportedly, they were informed of it. In any case, if they even suspected it was being kept from them, it was their duty to acquit!