Yes - it was jury nullification.
But your buddy Lee doesn't get off that easy.
You said this:
Dr. Lee wanted to expose the LAPD procedures in an attempt to change them.
And this....
when Lee was asked by the defense to refute the prosecutions evidence, Lee asked for a much higher fee then he would normally charge 10 times more IIFC. He flat out told the defense that OJ was guilty, but because of mistakes made at the scene during collection and at the LA lab, he could bring in reasonable doubt.
I believe you. Lee wasn't walking dangerously close to the edge - he jumped off the cliff.
Both you and I know he had the potential to alter the outcome, not matter how wacky that jury was. You yourself said hindsight is 20/20.
How dare he play games while the trial was going on.
Some friend you got there.
Despicable.
An expert witness has one role and one role only, that is to give their opinion of the evidence based on the facts.
Fact - the LAPD screwed the pooch on how they collected evidence and their pathetic chain of custody.
Fact - the LAPD lab had a history of prior cases where cross contamination did happen, lost evidence, mishandling evidence and had been warned about their lax procedures years prior to OJ.
Fact - there were enough lab irregularities in the OJ evidence that the defense, as all defense teams do, exploited the labs history and those problems for their side.
What you want is for Lee or any other expert witness to walk into a court and say “it is my opinion that person is guilty!!!”. They could but their personal opinion doesn’t mean squat unless it can be backed up with evidence. I certainly hope you don’t believe experts witnesses should perjure themselves to sway a jury either.
You’re not there to sway the jury to your beliefs, you’re there to relate factual opinion based on an expert analysis of the evidence. If your opinion sways a jury in one way, it’s the opposing councils job to refute your testimony.
You may not agree with Lee taking the case or how he testified, yet it is the right of anyone on trial to call experts to give opinion. Just as it’s a right to have legal council While I’d rather have taken OJ out back and shot him, we’re not a country that does that.
If you want to get pissed at anyone it should be the prosecution who knew Lee was going to testify truthfully about all the problems with the lab and the LAPD and they didn’t do their job refuting Lee’s testimony.
It’s up to the jury to take ALL of the evidence presented at the trial to make their determination on guilt or innocence. With OJ, I think they spent more time determining what they were going to have for lunch than the evidence presented.
In OJ the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, he wasn’t going to be found guilty by that jury if they’d been shown a video of the crime with OJ describing step by step what he was doing.