Knife found buried at OJ Simpson estate, report

[happyslug]

30. The Case was lost because of overcharging....

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 09:39 AM - Edit history (2)

There was more then enough evidence to support a Manslaughter conviction, that OJ killed both persons without justification. On the other hand, the evidence that supported a MURDER conviction, i.e. evidence of premeditation, simply did not exist. If the Jury found that OJ had had a good time with with ex-wife that morning (Which was stated in the trial) and thought he could gain her back, and in that belief drove back to her house and saw her with another man and became so angry that he killed them, there is NO premeditation and thus NOT murder. THE DA tried to present evidence of such premeditation but none of it held up.

When OJ's attorney asked the judge to rule that the charge be either reduced to manslaughter OR manslaughter be eliminated as a lesser included offense on the ground the defense for the defenses for both murder and manslaughter conflicted with each other, and the Judge gave that choice to the DA,and the DA decided to to try OJ for Murder not manslaughter, the case was over. The evidence supported Manslaughter, an unlawful killing without premeditation, the evidence did NOT support premeditation and thus did not support a conviction of Murder.

Thus it is the fault of the DA, but it was NOT bad handling of the evidence, but over charging, In most abuse cases where the victim is killed, it is Manslaughter for the abuse that lead to the death is rarely premeditated. I suspect had the DA opt for Manslaughter instead of Murder, OJ attorneys would have had him change his plea to Nolo Contende, i.e. no contest to the charge. A Nolo Contende plea meant he would be treated as if he plead guiltily, but that plea could not be used against him in any subsequent Civil Action. The reason for that, given the evidence, the DA could have come into court in clown outfits and still get a conviction for Manslaughter, THE DA wanted to give a jury a choice convict OJ for murder, or see OJ walk, hoping the Jury given that choice would convict OJ of Murder despite the evidence.

That case is an example of bad prosecution against a well paid and prepared defense team. The DA thought they could get an conviction of Murder on evidence that only supported Manslaughter on the grounds the Jury would see that OJ did the crime and not want him to walk. The problem was the Jury saw the evidence, understood the instructions of the Judge and voted that OJ did not commit MURDER (Manslaughter was NOT an offer in front of them). Bad lawyering by the DA.