[bannie]

Tapping into your expertise, I have some questions:

Did this jury work overtime to get him off? I recall a young lady who was, I believe harassed off of the jury. Overall, I felt that the jury had an agenda beyond justice.

In the "glove didn't fit" farce, why didn't the prosecutors explain the shrinkage, the plastic liner which OJ insisted on and the way in which OJ contorted his hand? All were so obvious!!

Thank you for the information. I understand now about the "sleeping at night" aspect of juries passing the responsibility.

[Lawgvr1955]

Your memory of the case is very good. Several jurors were removed during the trial. The one you are describing is a young hispanic woman who was removed for writing a note to another juror. She claimed she was being harrassed by a black male on the jury. He too was later removed. He was described as bullying some of the women jurors.

IIRC the prosecution had a witnes on from Aris, the maker of the gloves.

I learned a valuable lesson from the OJ case. Shortly after the glove incident I was prosecuting a man for rape. One item of evidence was a white sock that was found at the scene. When the defense put the defendant on the stand to testify, in my cross examination of him I had him remove his shoes and I placed the sock up against his foot to show that it fit. I did not try to have him put it on. One thing they taught us in trial advocacy class was to never let a defendant handle the evidence. As anyone knows, you can flex muscles, etc., to get an article of clothing to not fit correctly.

OBTW the defendant was convicted and got 30 years for the rape.