If The Glove Doesn't Fit...... You Must Acquit

[benchmark00]

Johnny Cochran died of a brain tumour, aged 67...He was most famously known as 'OJ Simpsons Lawyer'... a pure genius and champion at his field of work, i was a great admirer of the man.... R.I.P!

[howardj]

Possibly the most over-rated lawyer ever

[lord_of_darkness]

O.J Simpson?

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by howardj

Possibly the most over-rated lawyer ever

Errr how? i've studied a few of his defenses for various clients and theyre brilliant

[howardj]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Errr how? i've studied a few of his defenses for various clients and theyre brilliant

what? cops are racist, they framed him....

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by howardj

what? cops are racist, they framed him....

Errrr that wasnt what got Simpson off, like the title suggests, it was the glove defence, not to be confused with 'defense like Rahul Dravid'.....

[howardj]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Errrr that wasnt what got Simpson off, like the title suggests, it was the glove defence, not to be confused with 'defense like Rahul Dravid'.....

It was a dumb-ass jury that got him off

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by howardj

It was a dumb-ass jury that got him off

No it wasnt, it was pure brilliance by Cochran..... I have little doubt that Simpson was guilty, but that doubt i do have means that if i were on a jury, i would choose to vote not guilty....

The idea to try on the glove was superb

[Top_Cat]

Cochran was a legal genius. Corrupt to the core and totally unethical but as far as strategy goes, there were few better.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Cochran was a legal genius. Corrupt to the core and totally unethical but as far as strategy goes, there were few better.

Exactly

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Cochran was a legal genius. Corrupt to the core and totally unethical but as far as strategy goes, there were few better.

That's not really fair on him at all. Cochran was an unending supporter of civil rights and defended clients with a hell of a lot more integrity than OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, people just forget about them. He simply zealously defended his client to the best of his ability, as was his duty as a defence attorney, and he was very good at it.

[Top_Cat]

That's not really fair on him at all. Cochran was an unending supporter of civil rights and defended clients with a hell of a lot more integrity than OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson, people just forget about them. He simply zealously defended his client to the best of his ability, as was his duty as a defence attorney, and he was very good at it.

Come on, man. If you're talking about defending a guy who breaks into houses that's one thing but defending a murderer to acquittal (knowing that he probably should have spent the rest of his natural life in jail) is immoral. Claiming the 'he was only defending his client to the best of his ability' defence is stretching it a bit. Does this invalidate all of his previous work? Of course not but geez...........

Maybe you can divorce his genius at law from whom he defends but I certainly can't. It's manipulation of the law to ensure a guilty man goes free when if the law in the US was ACTUALLY focussed on who is guilty/not guilty (and not who has the better lawyer), OJ would have fried in most states. You tell me; in what context is getting a murderer off on what ultimately was as much a function of the public prosecutors' incompetence as Cochran's good lawyering defensible?

Yes he was good at being a lawyer but as far as the content of his character...........

[FaaipDeOiad]

I just don't buy the idea that being a successful defence attorney and getting someone who may well be guilty off is immoral. As a defence attorney, you are the sole representative of your client aligned against the state. The judge is paid by the state, the prosecutor is paid by the state, the jury is paid by the state, the courtroom belongs to the state and your client is accused by the state. If you do not defend your client to the best of your ability, he has no hope whatsoever with that aligned against him. And if you take up the job of defending your client against his accusations (and somebody has to), if anything it is immoral to not do everything in your power to defend his innocence, given that the functioning of the adversary system relies on the truth being discovered through debate. If the case against a defendant is not strong enough to have him found guilty despite the best efforts of a talented lawyer, the case isn't strong enough to have him punished.

Keep in mind that I do think OJ was guilty, but in terms of whether Cochrane was ethical or unethical that is really neither here nor there. He is required by the US Consititution to zealously defend his client, and that is what he did. If he wasn't found guilty it is because the state did not present a strong enough case against him, and that is how it should be.

It is also worth remembering that if a defence attorney who defends his client regardless of the circumstances is immoral, then so is a prosecuting attorney in the same situation. Remember that while the sole goal of the defence is to see the defendant let off, the sole goal of the prosecutor is to see them put in prison, and both are independant from what they might genuinely believe based on the facts of the case. Accordingly, most prosecutors will happily use the exact same tactics to achieve said goal, whether or not the defendant is ACTUALLY guilty. The stock defence of the prosecuting attorney is that most of the defendants they prosecute will actually be guilty since they have already been pinpointed by the police as the culprit, and the stock argument of the defence attorney is that they have a constitutional and ethical obligation to act in the interests of their client to ensure that justice is served appropriately. As far as I am concerned, neither are immoral.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

I just don't buy the idea that being a successful defence attorney and getting someone who may well be guilty off is immoral. As a defence attorney, you are the sole representative of your client aligned against the state. The judge is paid by the state, the prosecutor is paid by the state, the jury is paid by the state, the courtroom belongs to the state and your client is accused by the state. If you do not defend your client to the best of your ability, he has no hope whatsoever with that aligned against him. And if you take up the job of defending your client against his accusations (and somebody has to), if anything it is immoral to not do everything in your power to defend his innocence, given that the functioning of the adversary system relies on the truth being discovered through debate. If the case against a defendant is not strong enough to have him found guilty despite the best efforts of a talented lawyer, the case isn't strong enough to have him punished.

Keep in mind that I do think OJ was guilty, but in terms of whether Cochrane was ethical or unethical that is really neither here nor there. He is required by the US Consititution to zealously defend his client, and that is what he did. If he wasn't found guilty it is because the state did not present a strong enough case against him, and that is how it should be.

It is also worth remembering that if a defence attorney who defends his client regardless of the circumstances is immoral, then so is a prosecuting attorney in the same situation. Remember that while the sole goal of the defence is to see the defendant let off, the sole goal of the prosecutor is to see them put in prison, and both are independant from what they might genuinely believe based on the facts of the case. Accordingly, most prosecutors will happily use the exact same tactics to achieve said goal, whether or not the defendant is ACTUALLY guilty. The stock defence of the prosecuting attorney is that most of the defendants they prosecute will actually be guilty since they have already been pinpointed by the police as the culprit, and the stock argument of the defence attorney is that they have a constitutional and ethical obligation to act in the interests of their client to ensure that justice is served appropriately. As far as I am concerned, neither are immoral.

Isn't a moral lawyer a bigger oxymoron than a cultured Aussie?!?

Seriously tho, I think what you say is fair enough. It's not Cochrane's fault the jury confused doubt (which arguably always exists) with reasonable doubt.

I will say tho that Cochrane was altogether too smart an operator not to have realised that OJ's trial would be his defining moment. At some level he must have been comfortable with the albatross he'd have round his neck thereafter. Admittedly this albatross doubtlessly made him a rich man.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Errr how? i've studied a few of his defenses for various clients and theyre brilliant

Like his famous chewbacca defence!