Issues In The Criminal Trial

[William Anthony]

For those who would like to discuss issues encompassed in the criminal trial.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

For those who would like to discuss issues encompassed in the criminal trial.

William

Thanks for this thread. Maby agitators will not find the thread. hahaha
Hopefully different opinions of the trial can be expressed in a civil manner.

martiinII

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by martin II

William

Thanks for this thread. Maby agitators will not find the thread. hahaha
Hopefully different opinions of the trial can be expressed in a civil manner.

martiinII

Martin,


The first issue that comes to my mind is the role of the media and public figures giving thier opinion on the jury verdict. How much do you think this contributed to public opinion and what effect it had on Simpson's subsequent conduct?

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Martin,


The first issue that comes to my mind is the role of the media and public figures giving thier opinion on the jury verdict. How much do you think this contributed to public opinion and what effect it had on Simpson's subsequent conduct?

William
thanks for the entry.

I have some polling info on the subject.
Some of the results surprised me.

However it is my belief that the media controlled much of what everyone thought about the case. I also believe that the media, from their target market audience profiles did some tailoring what they presented to the public
for daily rating benefit. Many time this did not benefit oj simpson.


****
Before the trial started about 85 % of white people thought oj simpson was guilty.

****

People were asked if the jurors performed their duty responsibly, regardless of the verdict. Sixty-two percent said that it was, and 32% said that it was not.

****

When asked "Do you agree or disagree with the verdict?" 33 percent agreed and 56 percent disagreed. 57 percent of trial watchers believed that the jury reached a verdict too quickly. 33 percent disagreed.



Next, people were asked about their overall opinion of some of the key players in the trial. Eighty-four percent felt that the defense did a good job, compared to 72 percent for the defense and 63 percent for Judge Lance Ito. A majority, 52 percent to 40 percent, felt that the jury had done a good job. The prosecution was praised by a broader majority, 72 percent to 22 percent.

http://search.cnn.com/search?query=o...relevance&intl

[martin II]

William
i will give a partial to your other question.

I believe that the majority of the talking heads and media on camera people
gave strong opinions reports that oj was guilty.
Some such as N Gace and Geraldo actually gave trial summaries that were so opinionated against oj that some just discounted them alltogeather.

I believe that "POPULAR" media people did influence 'THEIR' followers.

I believe the media missed a opportunity to do good for the public when almost none of the media presentations focused on educating the public on the criminal trial system, criminal trial jury, prosecution and defense responsibilities in the trial, evidence presentation and cross eximination.

It is my belief that with more time spent educating the public ion these issue,
more people would have had a deeped understand of the trial and the verdict.

I donot think many americans really understand 'PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' concept.

imo
martin II

[tv]

Originally Posted by martin II

William
i will give a partial to your other question.

I believe that the majority of the talking heads and media on camera people
gave strong opinions reports that oj was guilty.
Some such as N Gace and Geraldo actually gave trial summaries that were so opinionated against oj that some just discounted them alltogeather.

I believe that "POPULAR" media people did influence 'THEIR' followers.

I believe the media missed a opportunity to do good for the public when almost none of the media presentations focused on educating the public on the criminal trial system, criminal trial jury, prosecution and defense responsibilities in the trial, evidence presentation and cross eximination.

It is my belief that with more time spent educating the public ion these issue,
more people would have had a deeped understand of the trial and the verdict.

I donot think many americans really understand 'PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' concept.

imo
martin II

I understand beyond a reasonable doubt very well. I've said before that Johnny Cochran didn't have a good understanding of it and I posted why.

I think several of the media were very good at educating their viewers on the law. Greta comes to mind as one. Geraldo was also good. I watched the trial closely and I found his reporting to be accurate. It was his perogative to say he thought Simpson was guilty. His show was commentary not news.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

I understand beyond a reasonable doubt very well. I've said before that Johnny Cochran didn't have a good understanding of it and I posted why.

I think several of the media were very good at educating their viewers on the law. Greta comes to mind as one. Geraldo was also good. I watched the trial closely and I found his reporting to be accurate. It was his perogative to say he thought Simpson was guilty. His show was commentary not news.

Tv,

I beg to differ on JC's understanding as he used a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence to hammer home that, according to the wording of the law, the jury must take the doubt that favors innocence (paraphasing for time).

To speak of the law is one thing and to say that someone is guilty after a jury said he was not guilty is another. I think that a higher duty comes with public figures to respect the law and not taint the view of viewers, even if the show is commentary. Ratings v. justice-not being in tv, I choose justice.

[kjb19500]

IMO, the one most important factor missed in this whole stinking affair is that a criminal trial is not entertainment and shouldn't be televised. Period. These people aren't actors and shouldn't have to perform for the cameras.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by kjb19500

IMO, the one most important factor missed in this whole stinking affair is that a criminal trial is not entertainment and shouldn't be televised. Period. These people aren't actors and shouldn't have to perform for the cameras.

I would have to disagree, since trials are public events. I think there should be camera's in all courtrooms, even the Supreme Court, so that the American public could educate themselves rather than listening to the opinions of others.

[tv]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Tv,

I beg to differ on JC's understanding as he used a jury instruction on circumstantial evidence to hammer home that, according to the wording of the law, the jury must take the doubt that favors innocence (paraphasing for time).

To speak of the law is one thing and to say that someone is guilty after a jury said he was not guilty is another. I think that a higher duty comes with public figures to respect the law and not taint the view of viewers, even if the show is commentary. Ratings v. justice-not being in tv, I choose justice.

What about the commentators that were pro-defense. Do you find the same fault with them?

[tv]

Originally Posted by kjb19500

IMO, the one most important factor missed in this whole stinking affair is that a criminal trial is not entertainment and shouldn't be televised. Period. These people aren't actors and shouldn't have to perform for the cameras.

I agree with you on this. I was fascinated with the criminal trial from beginning to end but I think it changed the way witnesses testified and the way attorneys for both sides behaved in the courtroom. Judge Ito was completely inappropriate both in front of the camera and in his chambers.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

What about the commentators that were pro-defense. Do you find the same fault with them?

I do not see how, if they are saying that he was not guilty after being found not guilty, I could feel the same toward them. However, if they were saying that he was innocent before the verdict came end, I still could not fault them for adhering to the presumption. However, if they were over the top and saying that the evidence was insufficient before cross examination of the evidence, then, yes.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

I agree with you on this. I was fascinated with the criminal trial from beginning to end but I think it changed the way witnesses testified and the way attorneys for both sides behaved in the courtroom. Judge Ito was completely inappropriate both in front of the camera and in his chambers.

I agree with your post. However, if cameras were the norm, then I believe the judges and the lawyers would act normally. I did see some witnesses performing but, for the most part, they calmed down and acted in a normal manner. Yes, I think the lawyers and the judge were out of control, but this will also get back to normal when cameras are the norm.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by martin II

William
i will give a partial to your other question.

I believe that the majority of the talking heads and media on camera people
gave strong opinions reports that oj was guilty.
Some such as N Gace and Geraldo actually gave trial summaries that were so opinionated against oj that some just discounted them alltogeather.

I believe that "POPULAR" media people did influence 'THEIR' followers.

I believe the media missed a opportunity to do good for the public when almost none of the media presentations focused on educating the public on the criminal trial system, criminal trial jury, prosecution and defense responsibilities in the trial, evidence presentation and cross eximination.

It is my belief that with more time spent educating the public ion these issue,
more people would have had a deeped understand of the trial and the verdict.

I donot think many americans really understand 'PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT' concept.

imo
martin II

correction
deeper understanding

[tv]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

I agree with your post. However, if cameras were the norm, then I believe the judges and the lawyers would act normally. I did see some witnesses performing but, for the most part, they calmed down and acted in a normal manner. Yes, I think the lawyers and the judge were out of control, but this will also get back to normal when cameras are the norm.

I see the merit to what you're saying even though it's not feasible to televise every trial. I can see all of them being on camera for future reference.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

I understand beyond a reasonable doubt very well. I've said before that Johnny Cochran didn't have a good understanding of it and I posted why.

I think several of the media were very good at educating their viewers on the law. Greta comes to mind as one. Geraldo was also good. I watched the trial closely and I found his reporting to be accurate. It was his perogative to say he thought Simpson was guilty. His show was commentary not news.

tv
i am sure you understand beyond reasonable doubt. I was speaking to the average person that got their info from media sound bites or evening news.

AS far as Geraldo is concerned, many people listen to commentary and take it as factual news.

i have always said that Gretas coverage was fair and unbiased when she was on cnn. I think this has changed some since she moved to fox.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

I would have to disagree, since trials are public events. I think there should be camera's in all courtrooms, even the Supreme Court, so that the American public could educate themselves rather than listening to the opinions of others.

William
I agree, trials are public events and television has given the public a chance at first hand knowledge of a case. Before tv people had to rely on tv persons to give their accounts and this was not always accurate.

I thought ito did some celebrity stunts but he gave both sides full range to make their points to the jury. There was not as much judicial control as there was in the civil trial and i think that was a good thing.imo
martin II

[tv]

Originally Posted by martin II

tv
i am sure you understand beyond reasonable doubt. I was speaking to the average person that got their info from media sound bites or evening news.

AS far as Geraldo is concerned, many people listen to commentary and take it as factual news.

i have always said that Gretas coverage was fair and unbiased when she was on cnn. I think this has changed some since she moved to fox.

imo
martin II

I still think Greta is fair. I thought she leaned more toward the defense in the criminal trial. As far as people taking commentary as undisputed fact there are always going to be those people that can't think for themselves.

[kjb19500]

Ok, I'll relent and agree that videotaping trials for archival and judicial review purposes are appropriate, but not live television. Just MOI.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by kjb19500

Ok, I'll relent and agree that videotaping trials for archival and judicial review purposes are appropriate, but not live television. Just MOI.

kjb

i think it is great that you considered you position, made some changes and then posted your new position.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

I still think Greta is fair. I thought she leaned more toward the defense in the criminal trial. As far as people taking commentary as undisputed fact there are always going to be those people that can't think for themselves.

I think that during the criminal trial Greta paid attention to the details of the trial and was very honest in her reporting to her followers. imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally Posted by kjb19500

Ok, I'll relent and agree that videotaping trials for archival and judicial review purposes are appropriate, but not live television. Just MOI.

kjb

The part that i don't like about telivised trials is that the private media , cnn.foz .nbc etc gets to make money off of someone's suffering for free. Maby it would be better if the taping would be done by the court without all of the talking heads.

martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by martin II

kjb

The part that i don't like about telivised trials is that the private media , cnn.foz .nbc etc gets to make money off of someone's suffering for free. Maby it would be better if the taping would be done by the court without all of the talking heads.

martin II

Here we go with the "free money" again, yet it never seems to bother you when Orenthal cashes in on someone's suffering.

[tv]

Originally Posted by socaldiva

Here we go with the "free money" again, yet it never seems to bother you when Orenthal cashes in on someone's suffering.

Diva, I'm sure the people involved in televising these trials for 'free money' for the various networks are just trying to feed their children and secure their homesteads.

[WarmNCozy]

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!

[tv]

Originally Posted by WarmNCozy

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!

This thread was started by someone because issues about the criminal trial kept coming up in another thread and discussion kept going off topic. If you don't want to discuss the criminal trial you really aren't required to participate.

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by WarmNCozy

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!

This forum was here long before Orenthal's latest illegal activities & it pretty much centers around both the civil & criminal cases relative to the double murders in case you didn't notice.

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

Diva, I'm sure the people involved in televising these trials for 'free money' for the various networks are just trying to feed their children and secure their homesteads.

I'm sure you're right

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

Diva, I'm sure the people involved in televising these trials for 'free money' for the various networks are just trying to feed their children and secure their homesteads.

hhhmmm
i believe NBC. CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX and others are trying to make billions more
off of the trials.
imo
martin II

[socaldiva]

Originally Posted by martin II

hhhmmm
i believe NBC. CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX and others are trying to make billions more
off of the trials.
imo
martin II

I'm sure all of those employees have "children to feed" & "homesteads to protect".

NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN & FOX? I don't think any of those networks televise trials. The only network I know of that carries live trial coverage is CourtTv & I doubt that they make "billions".

[tv]

Originally Posted by martin II

hhhmmm
i believe NBC. CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX and others are trying to make billions more
off of the trials.
imo
martin II

martin, I was just teasing.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by kjb19500

Ok, I'll relent and agree that videotaping trials for archival and judicial review purposes are appropriate, but not live television. Just MOI.

Trials are held in courtrooms but belong to the public. It is not enough, imho, to know what the law is but, more importantly, to see how it is practiced and enforced.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by WarmNCozy

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!

The day after the trials people were making derogatory remarks about the defense, the verdict and the jury, which has continued to this day and will continue, for reasons I do not think people are willing to openly admit.

[tv]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

The day after the trials people were making derogatory remarks about the defense, the verdict and the jury, which has continued to this day and will continue, for reasons I do not think people are willing to openly admit.

William, what do you feel those reasons are?

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

William, what do you feel those reasons are?

Tv,

I posted what I think are the reasons on another thread. I think a lot of it comes from self denial.

[tv]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

Tv,

I posted what I think are the reasons on another thread. I think a lot of it comes from self denial.

I read what you posted in the other thread. It's become apparent to me that it's not possible to discuss this subject, as a person that thinks OJ Simpson is guilty of murder, without being labeled a racist.

There was a post earlier in another thread from a NG to a G that was so filled with hatred that I was really taken back. It's good that it's been deleted. I'm not going to address the self-denial comment. Nothing worthwhile is being accomplished here.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally Posted by WarmNCozy

Almost 13 years later, and OJ is on trial for a case in which he was acquitted!

He burps and the trial comes up again!

Let's start from the day after the trial to talk about OJ on this thread!

I am almost in disbelief over the fact that I now have to point out the obvious, which is that this entire forum was created for the purpose of discussing the criminal and civil trial and all that goes with both of those.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally Posted by William Anthony

The day after the trials people were making derogatory remarks about the defense, the verdict and the jury, which has continued to this day and will continue, for reasons I do not think people are willing to openly admit.

I'd like to interject here and say that I was insulted that many jurors went to OJ's victory party on the date of the verdict. I thought that jurors were supposed to be unbiased, and though I agree with their verdict I do strongly disagree with attending any type of celebration afterward.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner

I read what you posted in the other thread. It's become apparent to me that it's not possible to discuss this subject, as a person that thinks OJ Simpson is guilty of murder, without being labeled a racist.

There was a post earlier in another thread from a NG to a G that was so filled with hatred that I was really taken back. It's good that it's been deleted. I'm not going to address the self-denial comment. Nothing worthwhile is being accomplished here.

I have not called anyone a racist, and there are many reasons why someone may be in self-denial, such as not wanting to admit there was evidence from which a person could form a reasonable doubt that some of the evidence was planted. The fact that many call the jury ignorant, dumb, unitelligent, and wanting to say they were interested in freeing one of their own but unwilling to take a good hard look at the sufficieny of the evidence and the way it was present and are quick to dismiss any mention of the role of race is what makes me think that some are in self-denial. Yes, I agree that, until one is able to speak on the subject openly and honestly, any discussion of it is useless. Maybe, you do not know that there was a thread titled "The Role of Race..."

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by Kate Sachel

I'd like to interject here and say that I was insulted that many jurors went to OJ's victory party on the date of the verdict. I thought that jurors were supposed to be unbiased, and though I agree with their verdict I do strongly disagree with attending any type of celebration afterward.

Kate

Kate,

I think that they had to maintain their impartiality during the course of the trial and after the trial were free to associate with whom they pleased.