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!
Congratulations. You have proven yourself to be admittedly, proudly, and willfully ignorant as to the law; unwilling to follow it in any event; and wrong on the main factual premise of your argument.
In other words, you would have fit right in with the jury that heard the Simpson case—they shared each and every one of those attributes as well.
So long, it’s really a waste of time talking to you about this any longer.