Nope. By his misconduct, Detective Fuhrman blew the case against OJ. That clip I posted is absolutely devastating. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with race. It's true that Fuhrman was convicted of lying about his use of the n-word, and that is indeed a racial issue. However, in the clip, he takes the Fifth not about that, but about messing with evidence. Which has absolutely nothing to do with race.
If I had been on the OJ jury, I'd like to think I'd have voted not guilty.
That's because I place a higher value on sanctioning testilying than on punishing murder in the first degree. It's a matter not about crime control but about state power.
Testilying is misconduct by the government. Murder 1 is misconduct by ordinary individuals who do not possess the power of the state. Conservatism is about limits on the power of the government.
“If I had been on the OJ jury, I’d like to think I’d have voted not guilty.”
_______
Well, that about says it all, doesn’t it?
Look, you have an utter misunderstanding of the procedural framework which allowed that little legal cheap shot by the esteemed Dean Uelmen to occur. He took advantage of a procedural ruling by the court, as well as his foreknowledge that the officer would “take the 5th” as to AND AND ALL questions asked outside of the jury’s presence at that juncture. Had he asked him “did you kidnap the Lindbergh baby” the answer woulld have been the same.
You also are apparently unaware that this exchange took place OUTSIDE OF THE JURY’S PRESENCE, thus it had no impact on the case, unless the jurors disobeyed the court’s order and used evidence they heard outside the courtroom, saw on t.v., etc. Read this, maybe it will help you understand.
“On the advice of his counsel, Fuhrman said he would invoke the 5th amendment on any question related to the Simpson case.”
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-07/news/mn-43219_1_detective-mark-fuhrman
As to your statement that you would have voted n.g., and your stated reason, you again misunderstand. EVEN IF a jury had heard that exchange, they would have been instructed to draw no inference from the invocation of the privilege. So you, being an honest juror would have followed the court’s instruction, and followed the law, and convicted. Unless you were like the 12 who actually heard the case, and acquitted for reasons having nothing to do with the evidence.