It wasn't just the presentation that was flawed. When you have a senior investigator who talks about "niggers" freely, it raises a real question as to why his co-workers shrugged off his apparent racism. The jury was justified in considering - based on the experience of its Black members - that the 'evidence' might very well have been tainted by a general racism in the police department that only found its plainest expression in Fuhrman's words.
If Ito had any balls he would have been justified in throwing out the verdict and directing a guilty one. But he was too much of a lame ass.
Judges can only direct 'not guilty' verdicts.
Three comments:
1. the use of that word was blown way out of proportion by an intelligent lawyer, playing to the sensibilities of an ignorant jury. It was a red herring.
2. Did you know that in a recorded interview with the police, after his attorney left, OJ admitted that the blood on the car was his and that he "bleeds all the time". This never came out in testimony because the prosecutor was to stupid to bring it up.
3. Read Bugliosi's book and you will change your mind. The case was not lost because of a racist cop or because of a ill fitting glove. It was lost because of the incompetance of the Prosecutorial team, up to and including Gil Garcetti.
Judges can only direct 'not guilty' verdicts.
Obviuosly, I am not an attorney. I was under the impression that if a jury clearly makes a wrong decision, then a judge can throw the verdict out. Thanks for the clarification.