THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, October 4, 1995 TAG: 9510040672
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A6 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Lynn Waltz
LENGTH: Medium: 76 lines
In January, the newspaper asked Norfolk Commonwealth's Attorney Charles Griffith to argue the prosecution strategy and defense attorney Andrew Sacks to argue the defense tactics in the Simpson trial. Here are their reactions to Tuesday's verdict:
ANDREW SACKS
Jury was expressing frustration
The verdict did not match the evidence. It was clearly an emotional statement by a jury that was seeking, I think, an outlet to express longstanding societal frustration.
The constellation of evidence - the shoe size, hair, blood - all together is incredibly convincing. It's impossible to believe it's coincidence that it all matched O.J. Simpson.
The defense was incredibly lucky that it just so happened that the guy who found the glove was a racist and a perjurer. Suppose it had been found by the No. 1 guy on the force who had a reputation of always being fair in the community?
The jury's message was an expression of disdain for what has been considered - correctly or incorrectly - standard practice in the African-American community in Los Angeles that their cases are treated unfairly and that police were capable of planting evidence.
I do not think this jury did the best job they could. They did not serve the ends of justice by reaching a verdict in just three hours. I think they were dog tired, fed-up prisoners of war ready to get out of there, and they grabbed for the most convenient verdict.
In this case, that was acquittal. To convict in this case would have required a long and arduous review. That's why I knew it was acquittal.
CHARLES GRIFFITH
Only Simpson's guilt was clear
GRIFFITH: This trial was an aberration - the length, the media coverage, the speculation, and a defendant who was an extraordinary personality with seemingly endless resources to match the seemingly endless resources of the state.
It is difficult for me to believe that the L.A. police were able to orchestrate a conspiracy at night in response to an unpredictable crime.
With all its resources, the defense did not turn up any alternative theory backed by evidence. With all the microscopic scrutiny, the evidence pointed to no one but O.J.
So O.J. Simpson committed the murders, but what does it all mean?
I think the jury was sending a message, but I'm not sure what it was. Was it an indictment of the justice system? Or the credibility of the witnesses? Or the quality of the investigation?
I don't buy that it was a race issue. I don't buy that African-American juries judge African-American defendants differently. Mark Fuhrman lied. That's the most important factor - his credibility.
Are they really saying they think O.J.'s guilty but they're telling LAPD, you have a bad apple so we're going to throw the case out? I can't tell you that I know the answer. The verdict is just another aberration. Sometimes juries do things you can't explain.
KEYWORDS: O.J. SIMPSON VERDICT REACTION by CNB