In a high-profile criminal case, you’ve followed the public facts closely. The case goes to trial, and the jury’s verdict differs from your own conclusion. What’s your first reaction?
They blew it. Probably bc THEY weren’t privy to enough information. Lots of juries are shielded from all the details. (That’s why rulings on objections matter so much.)
In some cases we have more info than the jury. Events, facts, evidence are excluded as prejudicial or in some other way run afoul of the rules of evidence. TV talking heads aren't restricted from talking about it.
I thought that OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment