THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 19, 1995 TAG: 9501170092
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Andrew Saks, Local Defense Attorney
LENGTH: Long : 168 lines
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
The case that you are about to hear is a story of three great tragedies. Two of those tragedies took place on Sunday, June 12, 1994, when somehow Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were brutally killed.
The third of these tragedies occurred some five days later, on June 17, when an innocent man was accused of those crimes.
That innocent man sits today at the defense table - and we all know him as O. J. Simpson, or more simply as I will refer to him, as O. J.
The prosecution comes before you today and asks you to convict O.J. of these two horrible murders. Yet, when all is said and done, you will see that the case against O. J. Simpson is nothing more than a sophisticated web of supposition and guesswork. When you have heard the evidence in this case, you will see that the prosecution asks you to convict a man of two brutal crimes upon nothing more than mere suspicion.You will see that the presumption of innocence in which O. J., like any citizen accused of crime, is cloaked, has not been stripped away by the prosection. You will have a reasonable doubt about his guilt.
As we start on this road of evidence together, I remind you that anybody can make an accusation, and anybody can be accused. people can be, and are made, everyday to stand trial in the courts across our nation from the traffic court to felony trial courts like this.
So the mere fact that O.J. has been indicted and charged has absolutely nothing to do with whether he is guilty.
For purposes of this trial, each one of you is a black-robed judge who must decide whether or not the prosection has overcome the many unanswered questions about the accusations against O. J. Simpson, and whether they have filled the holes and the gaps in their case against him, such that you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that they have proven that he is guilty.
O. J. has plead not guilty to each charge because he is not guilty. Although this is an extremely serious proceeding, to a certain extent, O. J. has looked forward to this day when he can proclaim his innocence through his pleas of not guilty and have this horrible and weighty burden of a false accusation lifted from his shoulders.
Before I discuss briefly with you the evidence in this case, I remind you of the promises which each of you made in the voir dire questioning which took place with each of you when you were just a potential juror. We would be less than candid with ourselves if we all did not acknowledge the unprecedented volume of publicity and press which has been generated by this case. Nevertheless, each of you has on your oath promised to the Court, and to the parties involved, that you can put out of your mind whatever preconceived notions you may have as a result of what you may have read or seen before trial, and can focus on this case based on the law and the evidence which you receive in this courtroom. O. J. Simpson is entitled to no more, but he is entitled to no less. And if you base your verdict on what you hear in this courtroom and the evidence in this case, we are confident that you will indeed return a verdict of not guilty in accordance with your promise to be fair and in accordance with the truth.
While it is not appropriate to discuss specific legal concepts at this time, as the Court will properly instruct you at a later time, it is important to remember several basic principles as we start out together.
First, that O. J., like any person accused of crime, is presumed to be innocent.
Second, that that presumption of innocence follows him throughout this case and is strong enough, in and of itself, to require you to find him not guilty unless and until the prosection establishes his guilt by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Third, this case, plain and simple, is a circumstantial evidence case. That means that the prosecution will rely not upon direct evidence of purported guilt, but on their effort to somehow weave a suspicious web of circumstances which they claim establishes guilt. You should bear in mind that when the prosection relies upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must always be viewed with great care and caution. Suspicion is never enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
Unless the prosecution demonstrates that the circumstances establish guilt, and guilt alone, to the exclusion of any other possibilities consistent with innocence, then it will be your sworn duty to find O. J. not guilty.
The evidence in this case will establish that O. J. Simpson is 47 years old. He was born in poverty but through the strength of his mother, the help of a community that cared, and his own determination, he rose from his disadvantaged background to overcome great adversity and to excel in life. He was outstanding in sports and became a nationally recognized college football standout. He won the coveted Heisman Trophy and became a professional football All-Star. Since his retirement from active sports, he has become an accomplished businessman, while still having time to be a devoted father to the children he dearly loves.
The prosecution contends that O. J., acting alone, killed the victims in this case some time between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m. on June 12. They will rely wholly, and solely, on diverse pieces of suspicion, and suspicion only. While the prosection will endeavor to call these pieces of suspicion circumstantial evidence, it will be nothing more than just bare suspicion.
We will demonstrate that from the very start, the prosection has built its case upon flawed evidence and then has fixed its focus on O. J. to the exclusion of other possible and even more plausible theories. We will prove that although the medical examiner found two different types of knife blades could have inflicted the mortal wounds, the prosection closed its eyes to such a theory, and instead accepted the theory that it wanted to advance - that of a single assailant, namely O. J.
We will also prove that although the medical examiner never examined the stomach contents of Nicole Brown Simpson, a critical element in fixing the time of death, the prosection overlooks this important omission and desperately clings to a speculative theory as to the time of death to try and make the pieces fit against O. J.
We will prove that the reliability of the so-called ``bloody glove'' is exclusively linked to the reliability of a man who claims to have found it - Detective Mark Fuhrman. We will show that not only did Officer Fuhrman seek compensation for job-related stress that affects his believability and stability under pressure, but he has expressed in the past a bias and prejudice towards African-Americans, suggesting a motive toward overzealous prosecution of such persons, including O. J. Simpson.
We will demonstrate that the DNA testing performed on certain blood is based on the collection of evidence by an inexperienced technician, some of which blood came from locations that were neither properly secured nor properly monitored to prevent contamination. Indeed, the prosection's assertion that O. J.'s own blood was discovered in his own vehicle or at his own home can hardly be said to prove anything, except that people who innocently scratch or cut themselves, as we will prove occurred to O. J., will bleed in places that you would expect them to, such as their home or car. Furthermore, the discovery of blood at the scene of the crime or on some other object purportedly linked to the scene of the crime, bearing DNA similarity to O. J.'s blood, again does not prove that O. J. Simpson did anything, except that he possesses blood which is shared by thousands of others including, possibly, the true murderers.
The evidence in this case will establish that while O. J. slept quietly in his Brentwood home in preparation for a late evening business trip to Chicago, his wife and Ronald Goldman were being murdered several miles away by unknown assailants. When O. J. learned of these tragic events while in Chicago, he rushed home, visibly upset and shaken. He cooperated fully with the authorities in the effort to find the perpetrators of these crimes, and he grieved the death of his wife, and of the mother of his children.
Indeed, O. J. was so distraught as to what had happened, that he questioned his own future in the meandering drive through the streets of Los Angeles, pondering a future without Nicole, without the mother of his children, and with what appeared to be a growing stampede by a misplaced prosection to falsely accuse him of these heinous crimes. Under such pressure, it is no wonder that some of O. J.'s behavior immediately following the deaths, when viewed today, seems so out of character.
Suspicions notwithstanding, the prosecution will not establish beyond a reasonable doubt anything to the contrary. In spite of one of the most massive, expensive, and thorough criminal investigations in modern times, there will not be a single witness to identify O. J. Simpson as having committed these crimes.
There will be no confession from a guilty O. J. Simpson admitting complicity; only his impassioned and emotional denials to the police.
There will be no conclusive testimony showing guilt. There will be no smoking gun. There will be no murder weapon linked to O. J. Simpson. Indeed, there will simply be a lack of evidence altogether in any way sufficient to convict O. J. Simpson.
In conclusion, to convict O. J. Simpson will require you to substitute suspicion and speculation for hard proof beyond a reasonable doubt, to elevate guesswork and theory to a position never intended in the criminal justice system. We are confident that you will not do that, rather you will faithfully apply the law to the evidence and will reach the only sensible and fair verdict presented - that O. J. Simpson is not guilty. ILLUSTRATION: Color photo by Christopher Reddick
Andrew Saks
Color illustration by Rob Kemp, U.S. News & World Report
[The murder scene, appeared on p. E1]
B/W illustration by Rob Kemp, U.S. News & World Report
The Murder Scene: A bloody tableau at the scene of the crime.
For copy of text, see microfilm.
KEYWORDS: O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL by CNB