We who were old enough to have paid attention in 1995, saw Marcia Clark perform incompletely as the head prosecutor of the OJ case. She did not tell the jury about O J's flight. I do not know about California's jury instructions in 1995, but in my state in 1990, we as a jury were instructed to see flight as a sign of guilt. Which was an issue in our case. The defendant after he realized he had killed his friend needed a cigarette and didn't have any. His brother who was there didn't have any either. The defendant said he did not have any money. The brother gave him $ 180.00 to buy cigarettes. The defendant got in his car and ended up 200 miles away hiding with family. Clark also did not tell the jury about OJ's suicide note. I think being suicidal is a sign of guilt. Particularly when you are accused of killing your children's mother. Clark did not tell the jury about the bronco chase and that OJ had a gun to his head. She did not tell the jury that when OJ was arrested he was found with his passport, a disguise and $ 8000. OJ had made a videotaped statement to the police on the day after the murders. In that statement, he admitted getting a serious cut on the day of the murders and bleeding in his house. He also couldn't remember how he got the cut. Clark did not show the tape to the jury. She was also standing there when Christopher Darden asked for the glove demonstration. She did not stop it.
There were two credible witness that Clark wanted to use but didn't. One who testified before the grand jury said that she stopped her car suddenly and avoided crashing into OJ as he ran a read light a few blocks from Nichole's house at the time of the murders. She talked to a tabloid tv show and Clark dropped her. There was also a Deputy Sheriff who supervised a visitor's room where OJ was talking to Rosey Grier. Grier is a minister, who was counseling OJ. That is a confidential conversation. The Deputy Sheriff told how Simpson and Grier were separated by a glass wall and were speaking by phones. He said he couldn't hear them when they were speaking in a normal voice. He said that OJ slammed down the phone and shouted "I didn't mean to do it." The law was clear. If you are having a private conversation and then you speak in a voice loud enough so that someone who is not eavesdropping can hear, you have given up your right of privacy. judge Ito ruled that although OJ had waved his right of privacy, he had an expectation of privacy. The Deputy Sheriff, therefore couldn't testify. His ruling not only defied the law, it defied logic. IF you are shouting ten feet from a Deputy Sheriff, you should have no expectation of privacy. If both these witnesses had testified and put OJ at the scene of the crime and offered a confession, I think it would strengthened the spine of the two jurors who in the fist ballot voted guilty.
There would have been a hung jury. I remember that prosecution and defense lawyer came back to talk to us after the trail. The prosecution could have asked the jurors if they would have voted guilty if they knew about the flight, disguise, $ 8000 ,the suicide note and seen the police tape. If they didn't the media would have. I read on AH.com that were three OJ jurors who committed to hold out for acquittal even if meant jury nullification. When they talked to them, the prosecution would have learned to use all their challenges. Something they did not do OTL. The best case scenario is that the lawsuit happens the before the second OJ trail. The prosecutions could have witnessed the excellent work of the plaintiffs attorneys and emulated them.