OJ Simpson and jury nullification

On Feb 1, 11:42 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Whether a witness was
> telling the truth is a matter of fact, not of law, and is up to the
> jury to decide.
***
> Jury nullification would be "I believe the evidence, and I conclude
> beyond a reasonable doubt that he did the deed, but I'm still voting
> not guilty."

I agree with Stan, and this is not inconsistent with believing that race and racialism issues played some role in the jury's decision.  But there are times when such issues are properly relevant.   Such could have been the case, if, for instance, the deliberating jurors said, "I don't believe the evidence because the detective was shown to be a racist and he had not only opportunity, but motive, to plant false evidence implicating the defendant.   And that defense lawyer was right when he said, 'If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.'"

In fact, I personally refuse to believe that there exists a jury of 12 good people of ANY race who would vote against their OWN strongly held belief that a defendant was guilty of a crime THEY recognized as a serious threat to society, such as murder, and thus acquit someone they believed had been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, just to "send a message" that had nothing to do with their belief in the validity of the law itself.  The lazy and racist detective, far from making a potentially solid case an open-and-shut one by tampering with evidence (IF that's what happened)*, instead opened the door to reasonable doubt when his alleged shortcuts were brought to light by the defense.

Of course, nobody can say one way or the other for sure, and the jury's decision to acquit cannot constitutionally be challenged afterward, thus giving rise to endless speculation that it was simply a "slap in the face at white society" for oppressing blacks.  But those who accept that easy explanation are conveniently forgetting all the warts and problems with the prosecution's case in this rambling, over-long, out-of-control coutroom melodrama.

I do also think that, in a society where seriously unjust laws are themselves the oppressors of the people, the people are justified in voting against enforcement of those unjust laws, as in the Peter Zenger case.  But no one seems to be arguing that's the same thing as what happened in the Simpson case.

(*) I am NOT applying for a trademark on this phrase, as it's already been used in commerce.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300