The prosecution had a slam dunk, air tight, take-it-to-the-bank case based on direct evidence. Introducing extraneous issues like this was more likely to cloud the issue, even if Judge Ito allowed it.
No fair jury could possibly have acquitted OJ.
They had so much physical evidence and concurrent suspicious behavior, guilty behavior, circumstancial, etc.
Who would have thought they needed anything speculative like this? I’m not knocking it, I think it’s a good point. But you wouldn’t include it, even if you were allowed which isn’t guaranteed, because you have so much more and so much better.
The jury simply nullified the overwhelming case you had.
The defense made it about Mark Fuhrman testifying incorrectly about NEVER saying the n word, and about whether a glove fit or not, in the courtroom, not under actual conditions.
It became about race, about celebrity and about paying back “the Man” (the cops, the system and “whitey”).
Let’s ask Judge Roberts.