Well would you trust someone who can proclaim OJ's innocence with a straight face?
Did he say OJ was innocent or did he say that the scientific evidence alone wasn't sufficient to warrant a conviction? Big difference. Since the OJ trial Scheck started a group called the Innocence Project and has helped to free people who have been wrongly convicted based on mistaken eyewitness identification. Men convicted wrongly of rape and other serious crimes who have served years - well over a decade in some cases - have been freed based on DNA evidence that has proved their innocence. Even if you believe that Scheck was completely wrong during the OJ trial, I think he's more than made up for it with the group he has started. These are innocent people that would be rotting away in jail were it not for the Innocence Project - you can bet that the government wasn't going to review any of those cases.
As far as the OJ trial, I don't blame Scheck or even Johnny Cochran for the verdict. I blame the jury. I followed basically the entire case on Court TV and I believe there was sufficient evidence to convict. Cochran was doing his job by putting forth the best defense he was capable of. The jury, as far as I was concerned, made the wrong decision. But given that, I didn't see that Scheck lied or gave misleading testimony in any part of the trial he was involved in.