October 12, 2025 • 60 mins
KCAA: Justice Watch with Attorney Zulu Ali on Sun, 12 Oct, 2025
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is a new opportunity to advance your career and
raise standards across the region. Visit nineteen thirty two Training
Center dot org to enroll today. That's nineteen thirty two
Training Center dot org.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
NBC News on CACAA Lomlada sponsored by Teamsters Local nineteen
thirty two, Protecting the Future of Working Families Teamsters nineteen
thirty two dot org.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Every Ready, thanks for tuning there for disposition of Justice
Watch with Attorney Zulu Adli. I am Attorney Zulu Adli
with a Justice watchcrew, Rosa Nunyez, Michael blau Clark, doctor Kilbasher,
and Andrea Rodeman. This week, like every week, we'll be
discussing critical legal and social justice issues that are impacting
(00:53):
our community. This week, we'll be talking about the OJ
Simpson case actually and the actual legacy of actually uh
O J.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Simpson.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
And I think most of us actually know uh O J.
Simpson were either in his uh pre murder trial life
and post murder trial life.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
I think that earlier on, I think that.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
He was obviously considered to be a somewhat of a
darling sort of speak.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
H as far as being a.
Speaker 5 (01:37):
Football player who I think originally came out of northern California,
went to a junior college, ultimately went to.
Speaker 4 (01:44):
USC as a.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
UH as a football player where he actually was actually
a great running back, actually went in the Heisman Trophy
and ultimately being drafted by the Buffalo Bills, although the
Buffalo Bills was not a very good team during the
(02:08):
time that he played there, but he actually was for
many of the years that he played the best running
back actually in the league, actually holding the single Sea
single season Russian record UH for a very long time
until it was ultimately broken by.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
Eric Dickerson at some point.
Speaker 5 (02:36):
But again, as we discussed a little bit about and
then actually after that point, he actually had.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
A very stellar after football life career as a UH
as a broadcaster.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
UH, he had a uh actually he was an actor,
uh in several UH movies one probably most of them
were comedic type of of movies, UH one being I
think the Naked Gun series and some other shows that
(03:14):
he actually was uh uh was in you know during
his uh time period as as an actor. He was
uh going back to he was one of actually one
of the first athletes who was had major success uh
in endorsements. In fact, he actually was did the what
(03:42):
is called the what was it, the Hurts Hurts Rental Car.
He was the Hurts Rental car spokesman for a very
long period of time as well, So you know O
Jay actually uh, and then he was and and then
and then and then again. Going back to his broadcasting career,
he was considered, you know, one of the uh. He
(04:04):
was actually a pretty a relatively good uh sports broadcaster
as well. And then we know that at some point
in time for many of us that remember the emphasis
infamous the yeah, I was even said, you know, the
the the case of People versus O. J. Simpson, which
(04:29):
was a there was an allegation that he had actually
killed his wife and a friend of hers or acquaintance
by the name of run Goldman.
Speaker 6 (04:40):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
The allegation was that he actually.
Speaker 5 (04:45):
Went to the location and and actually you know killed
two people, both his his ex wife, Nicole and the
mother of his children, as well as as uh I
think his name is Mark Goldman.
Speaker 6 (05:02):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (05:02):
He actually went to trial that is considered to be
the trial of the century.
Speaker 6 (05:07):
UH.
Speaker 5 (05:07):
He was obviously, you know, defended by what is known
now was the dream team that included UH, Robert Shapiro,
Johnny Cochrane, uh, uh the famous f Lee Bailey, Carl Douglas, uh,
several several really good attorneys that that defended him in
(05:28):
the case.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
It was a very very long trial.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
The prosecutors in that case was Marshall Clark and Christopher
Darden were the main prosecutors in the case.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
And ultimately, you know, O. J.
Speaker 5 (05:43):
Simpson was found you know, not not guilty in that case,
and it sparks some serious, serious divisions in his country.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
A lot of it had to do with race.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
A lot of it had to do with race, and
a lot of it had to do, uh with you know,
the issues that people were were concerned about in regards
to domestic violence.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
It changed that.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
I think the case actually changed a lot of things
for changed a lot of things for American justice.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
It exposed a lot of issues. It changed the way
that uh, domestic violence laws were actually changed. I mean
literally domestic violence laws were changed throughout the country. So
there's there was a lot of a lot that came
out of this, uh O J. Simpson case. Now you know,
(06:41):
the of course, the issue and the joke is that O. J.
Simpson was actually guilty, and I think one of the
things that we're going to do is we begin talking
about this about the case, is was he guilty?
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Right?
Speaker 2 (06:58):
And so.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Was he guilty?
Speaker 6 (07:04):
I don't know how to answer that question.
Speaker 5 (07:07):
Well, I mean, there's a couple of things I mean
to me at the time, and i'd just be beyond
I mean, of course I'm a criminal defense attorney now,
but at the time I was actually a police officer
when the O. J.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Simpson case.
Speaker 5 (07:19):
Actually the verdict during the case and that actual verdict,
and there's a couple of things that I mean, I
don't know if a lot of people really pay close attention,
you know, to the case, meaning that there's a few
things that that's obvious. One of the things that always
(07:42):
got me was the detective and the detective that actually
when he went to when he drew, you know, that
his blood was drawn, and I think that they drew
his blood. If I'm not, I'm mistaken that. You know,
it's been a long time, so I may be shaky
(08:03):
on some of my recollection of some of the issues,
but I believe his blood was drawn at the LAPD station,
and I believe they actually have a way to take
typically what happened is when a police officer, which the
police officer would not have been the person who took
his blood, but obviously they would have had some sort
(08:25):
of technician or something like that, a medical person that
would have taken his blood. However, what happened is that
he did not take that immediately and check it into evidence.
Right what he did. This is a detective. And if
you want to blame anybody for whatever happened, you got
(08:47):
to blame the LAPD CORECT. If you're going to be
mad at somebody, because they really made some really crazy mistakes.
And I've hadn't seen it before and I've never seen
it since. You take his blood and you put it
in your pocket. Right, you go back to the scene,
(09:09):
to his home and the scene of the crime with
a suspect's blood in a vow. That's where you begin. Now,
you don't have to go to police academy. You don't
have to be an expert. You know that there's a
problem with that to go back to the scene with
(09:31):
the blood.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Then even after you leave the scene, you don't go
back to the lab.
Speaker 5 (09:38):
You actually take the blood home. Then you take it
and put it in your refrigerator. Right, Yeah, that's a problem.
That's a problem.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Right.
Speaker 5 (09:52):
Then there's an issue with the blood and the blood
in a vow. They're saying that there is, at least
to some degree, there's a it. It's not the same
amount when you took it as you when you brought
it back.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Now, there's one that could argue that.
Speaker 5 (10:12):
The fact that he was set up doesn't really would
not make much sense because apparently there's a lot of blood.
But that's not a good look, right, it doesn't look good. Right,
you're gonna if you're really going to be a fair,
impartial juror and using your common sense, that's problematic.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
Right.
Speaker 5 (10:36):
Another thing that tended to be very problematic for me
is they're experts.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Trial is theater. It really is. It's it's it's it's theater.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
I mean, you know you can you know, I don't
care how many, how long, what law school you go to,
with how great of a lawyer you are. If you're
going to be a trial lawyer, you got to have
some theatrics and you and that includes your experts, the
experts for the people. From what I recall, and I
(11:11):
didn't watch, the whole trial was not very compelling to me.
The expert for OJ Simpson was great, and his explanation.
You know, you can't talk to jurors like they're your colleagues.
(11:31):
You have to talk to jeers in a way in
which they understand it. And I believe I cannot remember
the name of the expert for the O. J. Simpson's case,
and I don't want to say his name because I
may have him wrong mixed up with the other one.
But one of the things that I always caught my attention,
that really got me is that he is the sock
(11:52):
And what he demonstrated was that the way that the
socks were found is that the socks, the blood was
on one side and it went all the way to
the other side. The point he was trying to make
is that if you have socks on and the blood
gets on your sock and your your leg is in it,
(12:13):
it's not going to go from one side to the other.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Right, So what does that look like?
Speaker 5 (12:17):
You know what I'm saying, It's just, you know, everything
it just really looked looked bad. And then the craziest
thing was Mark Furman.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
I mean, when you know this is what I was thinking.
Speaker 5 (12:33):
I mean, you know, I'm a neutral for the most part,
I'm neutral in this. When f Lee Bailey asked him,
have you ever used the N word? All he needed
to say was, I'm sure I probably have. I don't
know when, I don't know how, but I'm sure somewhere
(12:54):
I had.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
You know what I'm saying. I had a black partner
when I was on patrol.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
We used to.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
I don't know. I'm sure I did, or I don't remember.
But he says no.
Speaker 5 (13:04):
Then he says, well, I'm going to and then he
doubled down on it when he asked him again. Then
they played the infamous tapes where he goes on the
N word tower, so he talks about the N word,
he talks about how they bleed out. I mean, it
was just crazy. I mean, I know it was drama
(13:25):
and somebody was writing a book. But that's a bad look,
right because now you just purjured yourself right then at
accident the injury as you go. Now you found the glove.
Nobody was with you, nobody was around you, but you
found the infamous glove. Now you don't put yourself in
a position where you got to take the fifth. So
(13:48):
now you got the lead detective in a murder case
taking the fifth Wow, it was a ultimate disaster. And
my boy Christopher Darden and them gloves. You never ask
a question. This is the secret. You never asked a
(14:10):
question unless you know what the answer is. You never
do that. People always talk about asking this question. If
you don't know what the answer is, you don't do it.
In fact, I was told that they were bulliant. They
were uh, you know, they kind of talented talented him
into doing certain things, you know, like they would mess
with him.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
That's that's what you hear.
Speaker 5 (14:31):
So then he says he wanted him to try on
the gloves, right, and obviously he put on uh, what
do you call it? And so you should have had
him to try on the gloves before you ever said it.
If you don't know what it's going to look like,
you would you never do that. But he did it.
And Oj is an actor. Now Jenny Concer said he
(14:56):
was a bad actor. But but Oj, you know what
I mean, I mean he could act, so that you're
going to ask someone to put on what do you
think he was going to do?
Speaker 4 (15:06):
He was going to, like you see what I'm saying,
And that's a bad look.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
It was absolutely It's not one of the things. That
wasn't not necessarily, it wasn't the trial of the century.
It was a terrible trial going bad on television.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
Right.
Speaker 5 (15:23):
If you want to see a good prosecution, that was
the worst one to watch. You see what I'm saying.
So then you know you're you know, then the question
is how did he end up being found not guilty? Well,
based upon the way they presented the evidence, it's not
too far fetched. You see what I'm saying. The way
(15:43):
that they did it was it was terrible, you know
what I'm saying. I mean, I'd never seen that. I mean,
have you ever seen that? What would you think?
Speaker 4 (15:51):
You know what I mean?
Speaker 5 (15:52):
I mean it was terrible. So I know that you
have comedians. I mean, then he did all these other
crazy things about it. If I did it, this is
the way I would done it. And you know they're
saying it whatever.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
You know. Now, legally I believe he's not guilty.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
I don't think and that's not that's just a prosecution's fault.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
I really believe that does Does race matter in a jury?
Of course it does.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
If I said it didn't, then I would be telling,
you know, a lie, because we know that it does
exactly but I think that it's not unreasonable under the
circumstances because they're not supposed to be watching television jurors.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
You know, there was a.
Speaker 5 (16:35):
Question, so they're not watching Tell and all this other stuff,
because there's things that bias you as a juror. And
I'm sure that had they, maybe if they would have
seen some of the things that everybody else was looking at,
maybe they would have been contaminated and maybe it would
have been different. But these are jeurors that supposed that
do not consider anything other than what is actually in
(16:59):
that courtroom if you're doing it the right way.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
And it wasn't.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
The system didn't fail, honestly, the system worked. What failed
was the LAPD and the prosecution. They just really just
dropped the ball. I don't you know, there's no way.
I mean, that was terrible, you know what I mean.
That was just absolutely a s show. Yeah, really, I
(17:27):
mean it was just crazy. I mean, can you imagine
being in a trial. I could never imagine that. I've
done a lot of criminal trials and having the lead
detect to take.
Speaker 6 (17:36):
The fifth Yeah, that's bad.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
I would look at my clients say we're good, Yeah, right,
Because that was.
Speaker 5 (17:43):
The lead to take Okay, you know, he has no
credibility none, so the glove means nothing, you know what
I mean.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
So it was it was.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
A terrible trial, so legally for sure not guilty. Now
after he know, he does all these other things. If
I did it, this is how I would have done it.
Then you know, then they have guy that's supposed to
have been the cold handy man at some point in
time admit it to being doing it, you know, but
they didn't really give him any credit because they thought
(18:10):
that he was crazy. Then you had, you know, had
him saying you know, I don't know if it was
to make money, But my personal opinion is that because
you get that's another thing when you do trials and
you give theories whatever theory.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Everybody has a theory of.
Speaker 5 (18:30):
A case, and you're taught different people do different things.
But I think the best thing is when you do
a trial, because you never know how a trial is
going to come out. You want to give the jury
a theory and only really one theory, and if there's
a way, and if you're not sure, then you want
(18:52):
to give him some wiggle rum. So what she says
is he did it, he did it by itself and
he did it alone. Right, So now you've done another
you got another problem. What if there is evidence that
there was there was more than one person.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
Yeah, you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 5 (19:16):
Uh, that begins to be another problem. But I can
say that my personal opinion to the extent that you
may think that realistically he was involved one way or another,
it definitely didn't happen based upon the way that the
prosecution said it happened. That's just my personal you know
what I mean. Uh, And then there was a timeline issue,
(19:38):
you know what I mean? In other words, the and
then you had the Bronco chase. You know what I
mean that you know that the there's there's a jury
instruction about the fleeing that that the fleeing can be
a considered a.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Consciousness of l right, and that's a jury instruction.
Speaker 5 (20:04):
I don't really recall whether they gave that that jury
instruction or not, but that was that was one as well.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
Yeah, you know, but I always had a problem with uh,
like you say, all the evidence and stuff like that.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
That was that was Tampa with.
Speaker 7 (20:19):
I mean, if you have an opening shadcase, then you know,
why would you go and plant you know, evidence. And
then the other thing was the fact was there was
two victims. I mean, and when you capture him there's
no physical marks or lacerations on him, because I would
I was, I would think that there was a fight
that was put up. But then when he was caught,
(20:42):
I don't recall them saying anything, like you know, you
have two individuals, somebody is going to attack somebody trying
to keep them off of them. There has to be
some type of physical evidence or something like that. So
so I'm not I'm not on his hand he had
cut on his hand. Yeah, So it's like I think
they would have been more to it, you know, And
(21:04):
so that kind of threw me off. But like I say,
all of the tamper with the evidence, and like you say,
once that lead detective took that fifth, that was like
game over to me because you taking someone who actually
takes the lead on the case and now he can't
answer questions.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
That to me tells me a whole lot.
Speaker 7 (21:22):
I mean, looking back, if I was sitting on a jury,
of course that was reasonable doubt period. And of course,
you know, you know afterwards, you know, you had the
book that came out that you know, it did want
to come out, but then they finally end up publishing it,
you know, for the Goldman family and stuff like that,
in order to get the funds and the proceeds from that.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
But even that, you know, I mean even that, I
think it was a money.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
Move for him.
Speaker 7 (21:50):
Yeah, but ultimately it was a money move probably for him,
but he couldn't he couldn't get the money from that,
so they use it later on. The Goldman family actually
published that later on in order to get the proceeds
because he didn't have the money, right and they end
up publishing it. But they they they published it. It
says if I had done it or something like that,
(22:11):
but they put it in big bull ride I did it,
you know, And I think that, uh, they got the
proceeds you know, ultimately from all of that. But of
course when he did it, I believe that it was
his intention, of course to get the money, because you remember,
he was really you know, going after you know, money
factor after that point, because you know, the stuff with
(22:31):
his memorabilia and then him getting caught up with the
crime and stuff like that, so I know he was
struggling for money. But you know, I just I just
think there was too many. There was too many what
you know, what else there was there was you know,
if what else you know, And so if I, like
I said, if I was sitting on a jery, I
probably would have voted not guilty as well, you know,
(22:52):
just the fact that you know, all the stuff that
the police you know, had did at that particular time
in the prosecution, like I said, like you said, they
put on the defense, put on a they put on
the case.
Speaker 5 (23:04):
Yeah, they like I mean, like I said, you had,
you know, the best of the best.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
You had Barry Shack, who was a DNA expert.
Speaker 5 (23:13):
DNA was ultimately not really as big as obviously as
it is now, but you know, he was great. He
did a great job of cross examination.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
You had Flee Bailey, who we know Flee Bailey is famous, famous, famous, Right.
You have Johnny Cochrane, who basically you know, is one
of the best that's ever done it.
Speaker 4 (23:40):
Uh. You had Carl Douglas, who really.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
Didn't do a lot of cross examination, but you know
he's just a brilliant mind.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
And then you had.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
What's the name of the professor from Harvard that was
actually on staff that was going I can't think of
his name. I can see his faith, but I can't
think of his name. I can't think of his name.
But anyway, but you had all these great legal minds,
and it was you know, they dotted all their eyes,
they crossed all their t's, and you know, they did
(24:13):
what they were supposed to do. You know, as they
as defense defense counsel. They did a great job. What's
crazy about it is, you know LAPD has a very
huge district attorney office. And this is not a stab
(24:33):
at Christopher Darden, and this is not a stab at
Marshall Clark. But if I was a district attorney of
because I'm originally from Tennessee, in Tennessee such a case,
probably the DA himself would have probably tried the case.
You see what I mean. I don't know really the
(24:58):
you know, I do cases in l A and deal
with DA's in l A, and the and the levels
of experience and trial and professionalism varies. If I was
a district attorney, I would have made sure that I
would have gotten the best of the best of the office,
(25:20):
because I'm sure they have brilliant, great lawyers on.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
The DA's office.
Speaker 5 (25:26):
The scuttle but is and I don't want to be
a rumor. Meal is that basically it was not attractive
to people in the DA's office, and some of it
had to do with there were officers who had a reputation,
and you know that is it that exists even now.
I do know that in some cases, especially like some
(25:48):
of these game cases and stuff like that, there's some
officers that are known to be you know, you see
what I'm saying, and a lot of times when those
individuals are involved, it's easier to get them to resolve it,
or sometimes they don't even want those officers even to.
Speaker 4 (26:01):
Be in the courtroom.
Speaker 5 (26:04):
So you know, that's where you begin is knowing that
it's one of those cases that was probably problematic before
it ever really got started, and it was obviously some
huge political issues going on. Because you are talking about
there's no I don't think there's very if I just
(26:24):
in my memory in my fifty some my years of living,
I'm not going to tell you exactly how old I am,
but I can That's one of the biggest falls from
Grace that I've ever seen, because I don't think that
people understand how huge, especially now, how huge oj Simpson was.
This dude was just huge. Actually when I was a kid,
(26:50):
you know, they had O J. Simpson action figures. I
mean I had there's OJ Simpson action. I mean, he
was just a huge, huge, huge star. He was extremely charismatic,
he was doing things like I said he was. He
was one of the He was the first athlete that
had such big endorsements, you know what I mean, like
(27:12):
with hurts.
Speaker 4 (27:13):
You know, go O J. You know what I mean.
I mean, just huge man.
Speaker 5 (27:17):
And to see him fall that far and that quickly
is just you know, unbelievable. Then you had the issue,
the other issue of the social issue that came out
of it, because ultimately it became even bigger than Oja.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
As big as he was, because I.
Speaker 5 (27:40):
Think on one hand, there was the law enforcement was
on trial, you know what I mean, And it really
was because you gotta figure, this is right after the
Rodney King by right, and so it's the same city, right,
(28:00):
So La is right where the Rodney King came, which
is you know, nobody will ever forget seeing Rodney King.
I mean that was like a mini series seeing Rodney
King get beat. And then here you come with the O. J.
Simpson case and there you go, you you know what
I mean, so now you got the LAPD, the one
that just got through, you know, going through what they
(28:21):
did with the.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Rodney King Rodney King thing. Now here you go.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
So you got a lot of people who were you know,
they saw it as the police being on trial, and
so when they were he was found not guilty, a
lot of people were extremely happy because it became about
the police, right, And so I think when people were
(28:47):
cheering and they saw all of these problems with the
LAPD on prime time sort of speak, because it wasn't
on prime you know, it was on I think CNN
maybe at that time.
Speaker 4 (29:01):
And to see him being.
Speaker 5 (29:04):
It was almost like the people who felt like they
were being mistreated by the LAPD and police around the
world felt vindicated, you see what I mean.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
So it became bigger than O. J. Simpson.
Speaker 5 (29:18):
Then you had the other element is you had Johnny Cochrane,
you know who obviously in LA everybody you know he
was a very popular attorney obviously in Los Angeles, but
you know around the world, who was also an extremely
charismatic person, brilliant mind. So now you have not only
(29:44):
you're being vindicated, the vindication, but it's also him being
the primary person being this articulate, well spoken, super swag attorney, right,
who happens to be a black man. Right, So then
you had that element to it, right, So you know,
(30:08):
so there were so many things that went and then
on the other hand, then you it became so racial
and a lot of it had to do with the
media had a lot to do with it, you know
what I mean. They played you know, not the Johnny
Cochran and the Dream Team is not the only one
that played the race card. Everybody was really playing the
race card.
Speaker 4 (30:28):
It was. It was definitely good TV.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
It sold a lot, you know, back when you know, unfortunately,
you know, media has gone has fallen from grace too
with social media, you know, but that's back in a
time where you know, you really had newspapers, you know
what I mean, Like journalism was like a real career
(30:54):
and now you know, it's it's it's become a problem.
But so that that was that was spectacular, Yeah, you
know what I mean.
Speaker 7 (31:04):
And I think I think, like like what you were
saying in terms of people felt vindicated. You know, you
had those people's like how can you cheer for a murderer?
Because I remember the TV. I remember sitting in front
of the TV when a verdict came in and people
you know, you know how they show these snippets from
everywhere and everybody just jumping up, Yeah, yeah, you know,
And and people looked at that differently.
Speaker 6 (31:25):
People looked at it, How can you cheer for this murderer? Right,
But it wasn't so much that you was cheering for
a murder. You were cheering that finally you you got
it right.
Speaker 7 (31:35):
You know, all this time that we seen this Rodney
King and everything else that came, you know, prior to
that that we were so used to seeing, you know,
in the in the in the in in in the media.
You know, because like you say, the media shines a
light on what they want to shine a light on.
You know, they don't shine the light on the stuff
that I won't say that that matters, but they won't
shine the light on stuff that they don't want to
(31:57):
want you really to see, you know. And they didn't
expect this outcome. They didn't expect this jury to come
back like they came. But then when the people start cheering,
they weren't looking like I said, they weren't looking at
people as cheering because they were happy some justice finding
got you know, served they was looking at it, go, oh,
(32:17):
you cheering for this murder.
Speaker 6 (32:19):
You know.
Speaker 7 (32:20):
It's just like when you've seen Barack Obama get voted in,
You've seen people cheer all over you know. It was
just that it was at that particular time, people was like, yes, finally,
you know, and so that's the way you have to
look at it, you know, and if you look at
it any other way, then you would be looking at
it wrong. And I think the people at that particular
time they were happy to see that you finally got
(32:41):
it right. But like you say, it shined the light
on the police at that particular time, because it's something
that we deal with every single day just living in
LA And it's not just it's not just happened to oj.
It happened to a whole lot of other individuals that
the spotlight have not been shined. And so that's why
we have the you know, the crime rate so great
(33:04):
in Los Angeles. That's why we have so many you know,
convictions in Los Angeles.
Speaker 6 (33:08):
And of course it continues, you.
Speaker 5 (33:10):
Know, he he became a very hated man, you know,
because people felt like, yeah, it.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
Was it was it was just it's bizarre. I remember when.
Speaker 5 (33:27):
And as as I told you, like, being a lawyer
is a second career for me. So when I came
after I came out to California to go to law school,
I took a class called Trial Practice and it's a
try It's a class that has very limited number of
(33:48):
people that can get into the class. I think it
was like fifteen people and it was taught by this
judge in la an La County judge and so we're in.
I got into the class and there were people And
what happens is when you have those kind of classes,
there's people who can kind of audit the class and
(34:10):
sit outside and wait for people to drop the class.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
That's that's just how huge it was. So we probably
had fifteen people inside the.
Speaker 5 (34:17):
Classroom and then maybe another twenty to twenty five people
or more trying to get into the class.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
And I remember the professor.
Speaker 5 (34:30):
Says, and I don't know what prompted him to say,
but he says, I don't know. He says, I don't
really care about what you think about oh J. Simpson,
I don't care what you think about the dream Team.
They did their job. The next time I went to class.
(34:52):
There was nobody waiting.
Speaker 6 (34:57):
We're getting into the class.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
Well, I mean, people just didn't want want to be
in the classroom. I mean that's I'm like, man, that
is crazy.
Speaker 5 (35:04):
That's that's just how huge and you know how soft
of a subject that is, you know.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
What I mean.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
And I'm like, this is crazy. Nobody wanted to go
to class because he said that. And you know, I
realized just how you know, sensitive of a subject it
is when you talk about the O. J. Simpson case
and people, you know, really saw that the cheering, I
mean because you saw the reactions where you'd see people
(35:32):
like they show like subway, like people were in the
different places like in New York, you know where you
could see like a group of people and you'd see
a group of black people in a group of white people,
and the black people cheering white people matters, you know what.
And you know that was crazy and that and you
could see that there was you know, a division, clearly
(35:55):
a division.
Speaker 4 (35:57):
At that point. Uh.
Speaker 5 (35:59):
And it and it's just you know, I mean, it
just shows just the differences among people. And and there
your narrative, man, your narrative dictates the way you see it.
That's why when you choose juries, you know, and they
say that race doesn't matter when you choose jeries, it does.
I mean everybody's narrative it's different. I mean, you know,
(36:24):
there's no if button adds about it. The way you
see things. Always say that the presumption of innocence, right,
you know, everyone wants to believe that they can be
fair in their minds, they really want to believe that
they can be fair, and people get really upset when
(36:45):
you point out the fact that they have biases. The
reality of it is is everybody has biases. There is
no exception to that. And if not understanding that then
you begin then that's one of the most dangerous things,
not to understand that we all have biases. And when
you're looking at the criminal justice system and the presumption
(37:08):
of innocence, and I'm of the belief that the presumption
of innocence is the most sacred thing that we have
in our country. Is the presumption of innocence. With all
the things that we have wrong with this country and
clearly we're far from being perfect, that presumption of innocence
makes us the best act in town. But that's just
(37:30):
my opinion. It don't always work right. We know that,
but in theory, that's a code doctrine, right, and so
thinking of that, there are people who don't believe, are
(37:52):
believed that it's anomaly for the police to arrest the
wrong person, for the prosecute to prosecute the wrong person,
or for the judge to allow such prosecution to take place.
There are people who, in their heart of hearts and
bless their heart, believe that the problem is that the
(38:20):
presumption of innocence and that ideology, a strong ideology like that,
don't fit in the same space. Because if you're presuming
someone to be innocent, you you know, realistically, you have
to presume that the police arrested the wrong person, that
(38:41):
the prosecutor is prosecuting the wrong person, and that the
judge is allowing the wrong prosecution to take place in
his courtroom.
Speaker 4 (38:51):
You see what I'm saying. You have to presume that.
Speaker 5 (38:55):
And there are people who you know, have a narrative
if that goes with that, that co signs that those
beliefs and those are the ones that really need to
be on a jury, right, And and we oftentimes just
(39:16):
don't get that right when it comes to that. I mean,
we talk about it people want to believe it, but
I think that sometimes you're subconsciously it comes out because
I know that sometimes when I'm in trials, you have
judges that I think that they believe that they're fair,
but sometimes some of the rulings that they make is unfair.
(39:39):
And a lot of prosecutors prosecute cases that clearly they
shouldn't prosecute.
Speaker 4 (39:44):
It's clearly unfair.
Speaker 5 (39:47):
And and so that's that's that's a huge problem. And
we need to change the jury system for sure, and
we've talked about that, you know, and you have to
make sure that you have people that represent a cross
section of the community. And you know, people get offended
when you say those types of things, But we have
(40:07):
to have that conversation, you.
Speaker 4 (40:10):
Know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (40:10):
I don't I don't suggest, I don't. You know, there's
a lot of things that I'm ignorant too, you know,
and I'm not going to act like that. I don't
have biases, you know what I mean. I could begin
with one. You know, I'm an old country boy, right,
(40:32):
I was raised in Tennessee.
Speaker 4 (40:35):
Yeah, and.
Speaker 5 (40:41):
My biggest influence was my grandfather, who was a hard, hard,
hard worker.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
Right.
Speaker 5 (40:53):
He don't didn't believe, no shortcuts, didn't believe. And he
used to always say that you eat what you catch.
You don't eat just because you're hungry, right, that was
his mato. And he could not stand a lazy person.
I'm the same way. If you're lazy, I can't even
(41:13):
hide it. I just can't even be around you.
Speaker 7 (41:17):
I just can't.
Speaker 4 (41:18):
I mean, I just can't stand those people.
Speaker 6 (41:21):
Man.
Speaker 5 (41:21):
I'm like, you know, if I see, if I get
the sense that a person is lazy, then you know
what I mean. I just cannot stand lazy people. I
just absolutely can't some people now, and it kind of
feeds over, Like you know, people think my kids think
their generation that I just have this thing about, you know,
because I do tease them about their generation. How you know,
(41:44):
lazy and sensitive they really are. That's another thing. You
can't talk about sensitivity anymore, right that you know the
benefit of growing up in an error where we were
not you were expecting to be. And you know, I'll
probably get in trust, get in trouble for this, you know,
(42:05):
like a.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
Man is a man as a woman as a woman,
and that's you know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (42:08):
You gotta just you know, either put your big pants
on or do what you gotta do. And you know,
we rode bikes and we fill off of bikes and
you know what I mean. So nowadays, you know, we
you can't you know, they don't know how to take
stress because you know, you're you know, like for example,
(42:31):
like kids, you see a kid riding, they got a
helmet on, and shoulder pads on and knee pads and
you know what I mean.
Speaker 4 (42:38):
And then we was kids, I mean, because they don't
want you to scribe. You don't want you to you
know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (42:42):
So I used to always say, the biggest lesson that
my mother taught me was how to take a loss.
Speaker 4 (42:46):
Yeah, now they get everybody gets a trophy, you.
Speaker 5 (42:51):
Know what I mean, And the biggest and I think
my mother for that to today, I couldn't quit anything
if I started it, I couldn't quit, right, I you know, uh,
you know. So and then you had this whole thing
about you know, being tough, you know, sucking it up,
(43:13):
being tough, not crying those sort of things. And now
that seems like we call it toxic toxic masculinity, right,
And that's on their time, right, So I mean, and
and and I see that now that we're going towards
and I know we're moving away a little bit from
(43:34):
the OJ thing, but how do we get on this subject?
But anyway, so and we're moving away from then and
and and then basically I think that it there's a
degree of I think our kids suffer from that because
you have to be able to A kid has to know.
That's why they go to school and shoot up everybody.
(43:55):
If you don't know how to take stress, what are
you going to do when something becomes stressful? You get
when I got teased, I know, we used to say.
Nowadays you couldn't do that. If I went home and said, hey,
a kid pushed me at school, then my mother's gonna say,
or my grandfather, whoever.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Is it's going to say, you need to go in
you know, you need to.
Speaker 5 (44:15):
Knuckle up exactly Nowadays, then the parent go up to
the school and then they might school you know what
I mean.
Speaker 4 (44:23):
And it's just like, you know, we try to protect people.
Speaker 5 (44:25):
And so when you get into real life and you're
you're dealing with stressful situations, you don't know how to
do it because nobody allowed you to do that. Everybody's sensitive,
right and everybody's about the bag, right, everybody's about the bag.
It's all about, you know, getting money, and there's no value.
(44:46):
So when you teach a generation of people that life
is about getting the bag and life is about money,
then what would you do for it?
Speaker 6 (44:54):
Correct?
Speaker 5 (44:55):
So you know, when I grew up, life was about
what you wouldn't do. Right now, life is about what
you will do exactly, And the reality of it is
is that people are, you know, unfortunately in a situation
where they will you know, it's like, do what you
got to do to get the buying Do what you
(45:16):
do you got to get that money, you know, I mean,
it's about economics, but it's not. But it don't matter
how much money you get if you don't have any values,
it don't even matter because millionaires and billionaires kill themselves too.
Speaker 6 (45:28):
Yeah, you know what I mean exactly.
Speaker 5 (45:30):
So you know, so that's that's a that's a something
that was.
Speaker 6 (45:35):
On my mind.
Speaker 7 (45:37):
No, you went into talking about your bias of course, yeah,
about the bias and stuff like that, but I'll let you.
Speaker 6 (45:44):
Know what it is right now exactly guess how we
went there.
Speaker 7 (45:47):
But yeah, when you were talking about you know, I
had this question for you because I know we've been
talking about it for countless years, and I don't think
that there's been a mass push, you know, in regards
to it. I think we we of it several times,
but I don't think it caught any ear. I don't
see no mass push for it. And that is how
to revap that jury, you know that we talked about
(46:10):
and I can't tell you, man, I think from day one,
since we came on air, we've always talked about that.
And it's been how many years later, and we still
haven't seen no type of jury reform. We still haven't
seen anything. So this cycle continues. You think we'll ever
get to that point?
Speaker 4 (46:27):
I don't know. I mean there's a couple of things
that they got to do.
Speaker 5 (46:29):
First of all, I think that they're gonna have to
start compensating people for Jerry duty, you know, because people
from different social economic backgrounds can do Jerry duty, I mean,
can take off if your employer doesn't pay for it.
Who can do that no matter who they are? And
you have to ask yourself this question, there is a
(46:53):
benefit that So in other words, what type the social
economic aspect of it is important?
Speaker 6 (46:58):
Correct?
Speaker 5 (46:59):
You know, you can't say that everybody every jury, can't
you know, be just all. We're not saying all juries
could be all black folks and all juries should be
all white folks, but it should include certain certain economic
classes because that makes a difference, you.
Speaker 4 (47:16):
Know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (47:18):
And so what it does is it excludes people regardless
of their race or gender from being on a jury
because they can't afford to do it. And we know
certain certain groups are actually are you know, economically, you know,
are challenged. So we have to do something about that.
That's the first thing, and I don't know if they
(47:38):
have anything pending to address that issue.
Speaker 4 (47:42):
There also have to.
Speaker 5 (47:43):
Change the rules about kicking people off juries. There is
what they call a bats and Wheeler motion right that
that's because it came from the cat those particular cases.
And so if it looks like a prosecutor is systematic
kicking off certain jurors, then.
Speaker 4 (48:05):
It could be it could be challenged.
Speaker 5 (48:06):
But the problem is that even if they find that
that's happening, if you can find if you can recant
or rebut with a race neutral reason like they were
not interested or this person said he didn't like the police.
And see that's another problem. The problem is that your
(48:29):
answers to certain questions are based upon your experiences. So
someone says, hey, has anybody ever had any negative experiences
with police?
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Right?
Speaker 4 (48:42):
You know who's going to raise their hands?
Speaker 5 (48:44):
And now that could be a reason to kick them
off the jury. So some of them are basically you know,
they're bait, and so are questions that are going to
be you know, it's going to impact certain people differently,
differently than other people. And the people that have negative
experiences with the police are probably the people that you
(49:08):
want them the jury, you see what I'm saying. So
then when they strike the juror. Because there's two types
of challenges, you can do it for cause or you
can do it for peremptory challenges. That means that's for
any reason. So you can, like if a person says, well,
I'll never find a man in a guilty or I'll
never vote not guilty, you know what I mean, Or
(49:29):
I think if he was innocent, he wouldn't be sitting there,
so that's cause. But when peremptory challenges, which could be
anywhere from ten to twenty, that mean east Side can
kick off ten or twenty people, then you know, you
say I want, I think to think and excuse Jerry
and seat number four right objection bachelor Willing Willer, you
(49:53):
go back in the back and just say, you hones,
he's been kicking off nothing but African Americans or Hispanics
or whatever.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
And he says, well, it's granted.
Speaker 5 (50:03):
And then he can say, how do you rebut that, well,
y're of the reason I kicked off Jurancy number four
is because he said that he's had bad experiences with
police officers, because he said that his cousin got set
up by the police. Right, so you know what I mean,
and then that might fly and there you go. You
see what I'm saying. So you know that's the problem.
(50:24):
And I think that there has to be checked. They
have to check those types of questions and change that.
Speaker 4 (50:33):
Somehow. Take that into consideration. Now it's a lot. Now.
Speaker 5 (50:37):
Newsome had came down with some laws that are the
legislature in California has made it more difficult, supposedly to
do that.
Speaker 4 (50:49):
So there are some laws in it that are coming down,
but not like that. It's not.
Speaker 5 (50:53):
It should be rapid and it should be federalized. It
should be federal you know what I mean? Yeah, so
but we you know, that's a problem, man. We need
to address it, and it needs to be And another
thing too, is that there's not enough emphasis on it.
(51:14):
You know, people aren't really talking about jury reform the
way that they should. They're they're you know, they're talking
about everything else, like the police. I mean, there's people
that just go under the radar, like the DA's and
the jury commissioners, and the jury system goes under radar.
(51:34):
Like you go to most places and you say, who's
the DA.
Speaker 4 (51:37):
In your county? Most people don't even know who the
DA is.
Speaker 5 (51:43):
And so you know, we we can pay a little
bit more attention to that, which has an impact on.
Speaker 4 (51:48):
Because they run strictly on convictions.
Speaker 5 (51:52):
You know, I got a ninety nine conviction rate, and
if people come up and say, look, you know, since
you got nine percent, what does that mean?
Speaker 4 (52:03):
Just got you're convicting, that's not the issue. And maybe if.
Speaker 5 (52:06):
Somebody really, you know, went at them, then you would
change the culture of the DA's office about how they
choose to prosecute people, you know what I mean.
Speaker 7 (52:15):
Yeah, Yeah, Like I said, I just never seen a
big push. I've always seen push for all these different
other things but I've never seen anything with regards to
to reform that, you know, And I just think the time,
the time and the errors here for them to be
able to do something like that, because it does make
(52:37):
a big difference. Like I think we always talked about
as far as like where they pool a jury from,
and they always say the DMV and stuff like that.
But yet when you bring somebody up in Compton and
lives Way and Crito's or cheto Hills and stuff like that,
then what DMV is you getting your information from?
Speaker 6 (52:54):
You know?
Speaker 7 (52:54):
That was always the question, you know, because I've always
been a firm believer that if you take someone who's
never been you know, never was born or raised in
a particular area or geographical location, it's going to be
hard for them to understand the culture that exists there
and and and be able to understand the plight of
the individuals that that that that actually reside in that
(53:18):
particular area. So it's going to be hard for them
to kind of adjust their way of thinking to understand, uh,
where that individual who was being on that's being on
trial is going to be hard for them to understand
their reality. So I just think that that that definitely
has to be addressed and and it you know, because
(53:41):
if it doesn't, then we're going to continue to deal
with this cycle of this disincarceration rate, you know, so
you know, and you know it stems back to you know,
I mean, we're not going to see I don't believe
we're going to see anything unto the level that we
see of course in the o J case, you know
ever before, I mean, that was that was epic. They
(54:01):
I don't think you're going to be able to see that,
you know, in some of these.
Speaker 5 (54:03):
Cane to get that number of I mean because predominantly
African American jurren. Yeah, I mean, wow, that was crazy, man,
I mean it was it was something else man. Yeah,
you know, I mean, and that it does make a
difference a lot of times. But also what happens with
you know, in these cases. I mean, another issue that
(54:26):
we have is the things that they admit.
Speaker 4 (54:30):
They allow things to be admitted into evidence.
Speaker 5 (54:33):
Yeah, I mean, because you know, they they give you something,
but there's always this back door way of doing like,
for example, gang evidence, Like the legislature might say, hey,
you cannot use gang evidence in the case in chief.
Let's say a guy is accused of murder, but it's
also based upon gang enhancement. So the so the way
(54:53):
it's supposed to happen is you got to be convicted
of murder first. But the let's just say robbery, let's
use robbery. Let's just say it's a robbery, and they're
trying to say you're doing it for the benefit of
the game. So the gang evidence, Let's say, if you
get convicted of robbery, then they can do a gang enhancement,
(55:15):
which I don't like that either, because that's.
Speaker 4 (55:17):
Really the new Jim Crow.
Speaker 5 (55:20):
But the problem with the robbery is the problem with
it is that now you can do a couple of things.
Speaker 4 (55:27):
It can be introduced for motive, it could be five minutes.
Speaker 5 (55:31):
It could be introduced for identification, it could be introduced
for different reasons. And then they got backdoor ways of
bringing and so now you've can taminated the jury because
they think that the person is you know what I mean,
you know, so that has to change because there's all
kinds of I mean, they let everything, I mean so
much stuff in. Like they say identification, let's just say
(55:55):
that a person has a moniker and let's just say
as moniker as monster. And let's just say, well, we're
going to show that that is his moniker. So we're
gonna bring it to evidence. Because when the person did
the did the shooting, or did the robbery, that they
said that the the other person of the co defendant
(56:15):
called them monster.
Speaker 4 (56:17):
Then they're gonna go to his Facebook page, you know
what I mean.
Speaker 5 (56:21):
And then he's got monster across his across his chest
right with his set in his hood, you see what
I mean. And then they're gonna show it over and
over and over again. Now you ain't worried about the robbery.
You just know this dude's monster from this set in
this hood and and so, and that's how they get down,
(56:45):
you know.
Speaker 4 (56:45):
That's how they do it.
Speaker 5 (56:46):
And that and they contaminate you instead of doing the
right so and they know exactly.
Speaker 4 (56:51):
What they're doing. The whole idea is to bring in things.
Speaker 5 (56:55):
Let's give you give you an example, and real quick,
if you were if a person is accused, if a
girl accuses a guy of pimping, you cannot use in
evidence the fact that she was a prostitute before.
Speaker 4 (57:10):
That's in'tadmissible. Huh, How's that it's in't admissible?
Speaker 5 (57:17):
But if he has been a pimp before, that could
be admissible. Wow, you see what I'm saying. You see
how they get how the game is, you know, or the.
Speaker 4 (57:30):
You know.
Speaker 5 (57:32):
Yeah, even sometimes when there's cases where a person is
made a prior allegation or something, you want to bring
it in to show that maybe this one is not is.
Speaker 4 (57:43):
Not proper either.
Speaker 5 (57:44):
I mean, you know, it's really cold, and it makes
it really difficult for someone who is innocent or overcharged. See,
that's a huge issue. People don't understand that sometimes people
are overcharged like they didn't do Like the guy really
and robbed nobody, he actually basically did something else, you
know what I mean.
Speaker 4 (58:06):
Maybe yeah, yeah, it's crazy, man.
Speaker 5 (58:08):
Maybe the guy was firing the gun up in the
air and they got him for attempted murder when it
was really uh you know, shooting a farm in public,
or maybe brandishing the fiarm, not.
Speaker 6 (58:23):
The fact that he was a gang member.
Speaker 5 (58:24):
They can tie yeah, because he's shooting up in the
air and there's like five other people over there, you know.
I mean, but so, I mean, it's so many different things,
but they're always going to go for the biggest thing.
And then it's the whole idea is to get as
much time as you possibly can against somebody.
Speaker 4 (58:40):
It's crazy. It's a cold game, man, you know.
Speaker 5 (58:44):
Yeah, yeah, so yeah, man, but my man, Old Jay
and that.
Speaker 4 (58:49):
But we forgot to talk about the fact that he
just passed away. Yeah guy for cancer. Yeah you know,
and uh yeah, that's a know.
Speaker 5 (59:00):
I mean, like I said, man, I mean, there's a
it's amazing, you know with the guy, the life that
he had before all that stuff. I mean, like I said,
people don't remember.
Speaker 7 (59:09):
They don't remember that, remember that one moment in your
life that that you know, and that's and that's a
sad reality that that, you know, you get that one
blemage and not saying that it's a minor blemage, but
it's just people, you know, people's perception and what they think,
you know. But you know, even so, his whole life
was run just because And before we go.
Speaker 5 (59:29):
We got to say this. When you heard about what
what's Bruce Jenner's name?
Speaker 4 (59:33):
One minute?
Speaker 6 (59:34):
Oh yeah, I forget it. Yeah, I know you're talking
about he.
Speaker 4 (59:37):
Was dogging about, man and not to mess it.
Speaker 5 (59:39):
But you know, he got in trouble for allegedly killing
somebody in the car accident.
Speaker 4 (59:43):
That's that's been the big thing exactly.
Speaker 5 (59:45):
But anyway, we'll appreciate everybody for tuning in for this
edition of Justice Watch. We'll see you next week, same time,
same place, same channel, and until that time, stay blessed.
Speaker 2 (01:00:00):
NBC News on KCAA Lomel sponsored by Teamsters Local nineteen
thirty two, Protecting the Future of Working Families Teamsters nineteen
thirty two
This is a new opportunity to advance your career and
raise standards across the region. Visit nineteen thirty two Training
Center dot org to enroll today. That's nineteen thirty two
Training Center dot org.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
NBC News on CACAA Lomlada sponsored by Teamsters Local nineteen
thirty two, Protecting the Future of Working Families Teamsters nineteen
thirty two dot org.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Every Ready, thanks for tuning there for disposition of Justice
Watch with Attorney Zulu Adli. I am Attorney Zulu Adli
with a Justice watchcrew, Rosa Nunyez, Michael blau Clark, doctor Kilbasher,
and Andrea Rodeman. This week, like every week, we'll be
discussing critical legal and social justice issues that are impacting
(00:53):
our community. This week, we'll be talking about the OJ
Simpson case actually and the actual legacy of actually uh
O J.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
Simpson.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
And I think most of us actually know uh O J.
Simpson were either in his uh pre murder trial life
and post murder trial life.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
I think that earlier on, I think that.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
He was obviously considered to be a somewhat of a
darling sort of speak.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
H as far as being a.
Speaker 5 (01:37):
Football player who I think originally came out of northern California,
went to a junior college, ultimately went to.
Speaker 4 (01:44):
USC as a.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
UH as a football player where he actually was actually
a great running back, actually went in the Heisman Trophy
and ultimately being drafted by the Buffalo Bills, although the
Buffalo Bills was not a very good team during the
(02:08):
time that he played there, but he actually was for
many of the years that he played the best running
back actually in the league, actually holding the single Sea
single season Russian record UH for a very long time
until it was ultimately broken by.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
Eric Dickerson at some point.
Speaker 5 (02:36):
But again, as we discussed a little bit about and
then actually after that point, he actually had.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
A very stellar after football life career as a UH
as a broadcaster.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
UH, he had a uh actually he was an actor,
uh in several UH movies one probably most of them
were comedic type of of movies, UH one being I
think the Naked Gun series and some other shows that
(03:14):
he actually was uh uh was in you know during
his uh time period as as an actor. He was
uh going back to he was one of actually one
of the first athletes who was had major success uh
in endorsements. In fact, he actually was did the what
(03:42):
is called the what was it, the Hurts Hurts Rental Car.
He was the Hurts Rental car spokesman for a very
long period of time as well, So you know O
Jay actually uh, and then he was and and then
and then and then again. Going back to his broadcasting career,
he was considered, you know, one of the uh. He
(04:04):
was actually a pretty a relatively good uh sports broadcaster
as well. And then we know that at some point
in time for many of us that remember the emphasis
infamous the yeah, I was even said, you know, the
the the case of People versus O. J. Simpson, which
(04:29):
was a there was an allegation that he had actually
killed his wife and a friend of hers or acquaintance
by the name of run Goldman.
Speaker 6 (04:40):
Uh.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
The allegation was that he actually.
Speaker 5 (04:45):
Went to the location and and actually you know killed
two people, both his his ex wife, Nicole and the
mother of his children, as well as as uh I
think his name is Mark Goldman.
Speaker 6 (05:02):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (05:02):
He actually went to trial that is considered to be
the trial of the century.
Speaker 6 (05:07):
UH.
Speaker 5 (05:07):
He was obviously, you know, defended by what is known
now was the dream team that included UH, Robert Shapiro,
Johnny Cochrane, uh, uh the famous f Lee Bailey, Carl Douglas, uh,
several several really good attorneys that that defended him in
(05:28):
the case.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
It was a very very long trial.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
The prosecutors in that case was Marshall Clark and Christopher
Darden were the main prosecutors in the case.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
And ultimately, you know, O. J.
Speaker 5 (05:43):
Simpson was found you know, not not guilty in that case,
and it sparks some serious, serious divisions in his country.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
A lot of it had to do with race.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
A lot of it had to do with race, and
a lot of it had to do, uh with you know,
the issues that people were were concerned about in regards
to domestic violence.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
It changed that.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
I think the case actually changed a lot of things
for changed a lot of things for American justice.
Speaker 4 (06:18):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (06:19):
It exposed a lot of issues. It changed the way
that uh, domestic violence laws were actually changed. I mean
literally domestic violence laws were changed throughout the country. So
there's there was a lot of a lot that came
out of this, uh O J. Simpson case. Now you know,
(06:41):
the of course, the issue and the joke is that O. J.
Simpson was actually guilty, and I think one of the
things that we're going to do is we begin talking
about this about the case, is was he guilty?
Speaker 4 (06:56):
Right?
Speaker 2 (06:58):
And so.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Was he guilty?
Speaker 6 (07:04):
I don't know how to answer that question.
Speaker 5 (07:07):
Well, I mean, there's a couple of things I mean
to me at the time, and i'd just be beyond
I mean, of course I'm a criminal defense attorney now,
but at the time I was actually a police officer
when the O. J.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Simpson case.
Speaker 5 (07:19):
Actually the verdict during the case and that actual verdict,
and there's a couple of things that I mean, I
don't know if a lot of people really pay close attention,
you know, to the case, meaning that there's a few
things that that's obvious. One of the things that always
(07:42):
got me was the detective and the detective that actually
when he went to when he drew, you know, that
his blood was drawn, and I think that they drew
his blood. If I'm not, I'm mistaken that. You know,
it's been a long time, so I may be shaky
(08:03):
on some of my recollection of some of the issues,
but I believe his blood was drawn at the LAPD station,
and I believe they actually have a way to take
typically what happened is when a police officer, which the
police officer would not have been the person who took
his blood, but obviously they would have had some sort
(08:25):
of technician or something like that, a medical person that
would have taken his blood. However, what happened is that
he did not take that immediately and check it into evidence.
Right what he did. This is a detective. And if
you want to blame anybody for whatever happened, you got
(08:47):
to blame the LAPD CORECT. If you're going to be
mad at somebody, because they really made some really crazy mistakes.
And I've hadn't seen it before and I've never seen
it since. You take his blood and you put it
in your pocket. Right, you go back to the scene,
(09:09):
to his home and the scene of the crime with
a suspect's blood in a vow. That's where you begin. Now,
you don't have to go to police academy. You don't
have to be an expert. You know that there's a
problem with that to go back to the scene with
(09:31):
the blood.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Then even after you leave the scene, you don't go
back to the lab.
Speaker 5 (09:38):
You actually take the blood home. Then you take it
and put it in your refrigerator. Right, Yeah, that's a problem.
That's a problem.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Right.
Speaker 5 (09:52):
Then there's an issue with the blood and the blood
in a vow. They're saying that there is, at least
to some degree, there's a it. It's not the same
amount when you took it as you when you brought
it back.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Now, there's one that could argue that.
Speaker 5 (10:12):
The fact that he was set up doesn't really would
not make much sense because apparently there's a lot of blood.
But that's not a good look, right, it doesn't look good. Right,
you're gonna if you're really going to be a fair,
impartial juror and using your common sense, that's problematic.
Speaker 4 (10:34):
Right.
Speaker 5 (10:36):
Another thing that tended to be very problematic for me
is they're experts.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
Trial is theater. It really is. It's it's it's it's theater.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
I mean, you know you can you know, I don't
care how many, how long, what law school you go to,
with how great of a lawyer you are. If you're
going to be a trial lawyer, you got to have
some theatrics and you and that includes your experts, the
experts for the people. From what I recall, and I
(11:11):
didn't watch, the whole trial was not very compelling to me.
The expert for OJ Simpson was great, and his explanation.
You know, you can't talk to jurors like they're your colleagues.
(11:31):
You have to talk to jeers in a way in
which they understand it. And I believe I cannot remember
the name of the expert for the O. J. Simpson's case,
and I don't want to say his name because I
may have him wrong mixed up with the other one.
But one of the things that I always caught my attention,
that really got me is that he is the sock
(11:52):
And what he demonstrated was that the way that the
socks were found is that the socks, the blood was
on one side and it went all the way to
the other side. The point he was trying to make
is that if you have socks on and the blood
gets on your sock and your your leg is in it,
(12:13):
it's not going to go from one side to the other.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Right, So what does that look like?
Speaker 5 (12:17):
You know what I'm saying, It's just, you know, everything
it just really looked looked bad. And then the craziest
thing was Mark Furman.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
I mean, when you know this is what I was thinking.
Speaker 5 (12:33):
I mean, you know, I'm a neutral for the most part,
I'm neutral in this. When f Lee Bailey asked him,
have you ever used the N word? All he needed
to say was, I'm sure I probably have. I don't
know when, I don't know how, but I'm sure somewhere
(12:54):
I had.
Speaker 4 (12:55):
You know what I'm saying. I had a black partner
when I was on patrol.
Speaker 6 (12:59):
We used to.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
I don't know. I'm sure I did, or I don't remember.
But he says no.
Speaker 5 (13:04):
Then he says, well, I'm going to and then he
doubled down on it when he asked him again. Then
they played the infamous tapes where he goes on the
N word tower, so he talks about the N word,
he talks about how they bleed out. I mean, it
was just crazy. I mean, I know it was drama
(13:25):
and somebody was writing a book. But that's a bad look,
right because now you just purjured yourself right then at
accident the injury as you go. Now you found the glove.
Nobody was with you, nobody was around you, but you
found the infamous glove. Now you don't put yourself in
a position where you got to take the fifth. So
(13:48):
now you got the lead detective in a murder case
taking the fifth Wow, it was a ultimate disaster. And
my boy Christopher Darden and them gloves. You never ask
a question. This is the secret. You never asked a
(14:10):
question unless you know what the answer is. You never
do that. People always talk about asking this question. If
you don't know what the answer is, you don't do it.
In fact, I was told that they were bulliant. They
were uh, you know, they kind of talented talented him
into doing certain things, you know, like they would mess
with him.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
That's that's what you hear.
Speaker 5 (14:31):
So then he says he wanted him to try on
the gloves, right, and obviously he put on uh, what
do you call it? And so you should have had
him to try on the gloves before you ever said it.
If you don't know what it's going to look like,
you would you never do that. But he did it.
And Oj is an actor. Now Jenny Concer said he
(14:56):
was a bad actor. But but Oj, you know what
I mean, I mean he could act, so that you're
going to ask someone to put on what do you
think he was going to do?
Speaker 4 (15:06):
He was going to, like you see what I'm saying,
And that's a bad look.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
It was absolutely It's not one of the things. That
wasn't not necessarily, it wasn't the trial of the century.
It was a terrible trial going bad on television.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
Right.
Speaker 5 (15:23):
If you want to see a good prosecution, that was
the worst one to watch. You see what I'm saying.
So then you know you're you know, then the question
is how did he end up being found not guilty? Well,
based upon the way they presented the evidence, it's not
too far fetched. You see what I'm saying. The way
(15:43):
that they did it was it was terrible, you know
what I'm saying. I mean, I'd never seen that. I mean,
have you ever seen that? What would you think?
Speaker 4 (15:51):
You know what I mean?
Speaker 5 (15:52):
I mean it was terrible. So I know that you
have comedians. I mean, then he did all these other
crazy things about it. If I did it, this is
the way I would done it. And you know they're
saying it whatever.
Speaker 4 (16:02):
You know. Now, legally I believe he's not guilty.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
I don't think and that's not that's just a prosecution's fault.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
I really believe that does Does race matter in a jury?
Of course it does.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
If I said it didn't, then I would be telling,
you know, a lie, because we know that it does
exactly but I think that it's not unreasonable under the
circumstances because they're not supposed to be watching television jurors.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
You know, there was a.
Speaker 5 (16:35):
Question, so they're not watching Tell and all this other stuff,
because there's things that bias you as a juror. And
I'm sure that had they, maybe if they would have
seen some of the things that everybody else was looking at,
maybe they would have been contaminated and maybe it would
have been different. But these are jeurors that supposed that
do not consider anything other than what is actually in
(16:59):
that courtroom if you're doing it the right way.
Speaker 4 (17:02):
And it wasn't.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
The system didn't fail, honestly, the system worked. What failed
was the LAPD and the prosecution. They just really just
dropped the ball. I don't you know, there's no way.
I mean, that was terrible, you know what I mean.
That was just absolutely a s show. Yeah, really, I
(17:27):
mean it was just crazy. I mean, can you imagine
being in a trial. I could never imagine that. I've
done a lot of criminal trials and having the lead
detect to take.
Speaker 6 (17:36):
The fifth Yeah, that's bad.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
I would look at my clients say we're good, Yeah, right,
Because that was.
Speaker 5 (17:43):
The lead to take Okay, you know, he has no
credibility none, so the glove means nothing, you know what
I mean.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
So it was it was.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
A terrible trial, so legally for sure not guilty. Now
after he know, he does all these other things. If
I did it, this is how I would have done it.
Then you know, then they have guy that's supposed to
have been the cold handy man at some point in
time admit it to being doing it, you know, but
they didn't really give him any credit because they thought
(18:10):
that he was crazy. Then you had, you know, had
him saying you know, I don't know if it was
to make money, But my personal opinion is that because
you get that's another thing when you do trials and
you give theories whatever theory.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Everybody has a theory of.
Speaker 5 (18:30):
A case, and you're taught different people do different things.
But I think the best thing is when you do
a trial, because you never know how a trial is
going to come out. You want to give the jury
a theory and only really one theory, and if there's
a way, and if you're not sure, then you want
(18:52):
to give him some wiggle rum. So what she says
is he did it, he did it by itself and
he did it alone. Right, So now you've done another
you got another problem. What if there is evidence that
there was there was more than one person.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
Yeah, you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 5 (19:16):
Uh, that begins to be another problem. But I can
say that my personal opinion to the extent that you
may think that realistically he was involved one way or another,
it definitely didn't happen based upon the way that the
prosecution said it happened. That's just my personal you know
what I mean. Uh, And then there was a timeline issue,
(19:38):
you know what I mean? In other words, the and
then you had the Bronco chase. You know what I
mean that you know that the there's there's a jury
instruction about the fleeing that that the fleeing can be
a considered a.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Consciousness of l right, and that's a jury instruction.
Speaker 5 (20:04):
I don't really recall whether they gave that that jury
instruction or not, but that was that was one as well.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
Yeah, you know, but I always had a problem with uh,
like you say, all the evidence and stuff like that.
Speaker 6 (20:17):
That was that was Tampa with.
Speaker 7 (20:19):
I mean, if you have an opening shadcase, then you know,
why would you go and plant you know, evidence. And
then the other thing was the fact was there was
two victims. I mean, and when you capture him there's
no physical marks or lacerations on him, because I would
I was, I would think that there was a fight
that was put up. But then when he was caught,
(20:42):
I don't recall them saying anything, like you know, you
have two individuals, somebody is going to attack somebody trying
to keep them off of them. There has to be
some type of physical evidence or something like that. So
so I'm not I'm not on his hand he had
cut on his hand. Yeah, So it's like I think
they would have been more to it, you know, And
(21:04):
so that kind of threw me off. But like I say,
all of the tamper with the evidence, and like you say,
once that lead detective took that fifth, that was like
game over to me because you taking someone who actually
takes the lead on the case and now he can't
answer questions.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
That to me tells me a whole lot.
Speaker 7 (21:22):
I mean, looking back, if I was sitting on a jury,
of course that was reasonable doubt period. And of course,
you know, you know afterwards, you know, you had the
book that came out that you know, it did want
to come out, but then they finally end up publishing it,
you know, for the Goldman family and stuff like that,
in order to get the funds and the proceeds from that.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
But even that, you know, I mean even that, I
think it was a money.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
Move for him.
Speaker 7 (21:50):
Yeah, but ultimately it was a money move probably for him,
but he couldn't he couldn't get the money from that,
so they use it later on. The Goldman family actually
published that later on in order to get the proceeds
because he didn't have the money, right and they end
up publishing it. But they they they published it. It
says if I had done it or something like that,
(22:11):
but they put it in big bull ride I did it,
you know, And I think that, uh, they got the
proceeds you know, ultimately from all of that. But of
course when he did it, I believe that it was
his intention, of course to get the money, because you remember,
he was really you know, going after you know, money
factor after that point, because you know, the stuff with
(22:31):
his memorabilia and then him getting caught up with the
crime and stuff like that, so I know he was
struggling for money. But you know, I just I just
think there was too many. There was too many what
you know, what else there was there was you know,
if what else you know, And so if I, like
I said, if I was sitting on a jery, I
probably would have voted not guilty as well, you know,
(22:52):
just the fact that you know, all the stuff that
the police you know, had did at that particular time
in the prosecution, like I said, like you said, they
put on the defense, put on a they put on
the case.
Speaker 5 (23:04):
Yeah, they like I mean, like I said, you had,
you know, the best of the best.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
You had Barry Shack, who was a DNA expert.
Speaker 5 (23:13):
DNA was ultimately not really as big as obviously as
it is now, but you know, he was great. He
did a great job of cross examination.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
You had Flee Bailey, who we know Flee Bailey is famous, famous, famous, Right.
You have Johnny Cochrane, who basically you know, is one
of the best that's ever done it.
Speaker 4 (23:40):
Uh. You had Carl Douglas, who really.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
Didn't do a lot of cross examination, but you know
he's just a brilliant mind.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
And then you had.
Speaker 5 (23:51):
What's the name of the professor from Harvard that was
actually on staff that was going I can't think of
his name. I can see his faith, but I can't
think of his name. I can't think of his name.
But anyway, but you had all these great legal minds,
and it was you know, they dotted all their eyes,
they crossed all their t's, and you know, they did
(24:13):
what they were supposed to do. You know, as they
as defense defense counsel. They did a great job. What's
crazy about it is, you know LAPD has a very
huge district attorney office. And this is not a stab
(24:33):
at Christopher Darden, and this is not a stab at
Marshall Clark. But if I was a district attorney of
because I'm originally from Tennessee, in Tennessee such a case,
probably the DA himself would have probably tried the case.
You see what I mean. I don't know really the
(24:58):
you know, I do cases in l A and deal
with DA's in l A, and the and the levels
of experience and trial and professionalism varies. If I was
a district attorney, I would have made sure that I
would have gotten the best of the best of the office,
(25:20):
because I'm sure they have brilliant, great lawyers on.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
The DA's office.
Speaker 5 (25:26):
The scuttle but is and I don't want to be
a rumor. Meal is that basically it was not attractive
to people in the DA's office, and some of it
had to do with there were officers who had a reputation,
and you know that is it that exists even now.
I do know that in some cases, especially like some
(25:48):
of these game cases and stuff like that, there's some
officers that are known to be you know, you see
what I'm saying, and a lot of times when those
individuals are involved, it's easier to get them to resolve it,
or sometimes they don't even want those officers even to.
Speaker 4 (26:01):
Be in the courtroom.
Speaker 5 (26:04):
So you know, that's where you begin is knowing that
it's one of those cases that was probably problematic before
it ever really got started, and it was obviously some
huge political issues going on. Because you are talking about
there's no I don't think there's very if I just
(26:24):
in my memory in my fifty some my years of living,
I'm not going to tell you exactly how old I am,
but I can That's one of the biggest falls from
Grace that I've ever seen, because I don't think that
people understand how huge, especially now, how huge oj Simpson was.
This dude was just huge. Actually when I was a kid,
(26:50):
you know, they had O J. Simpson action figures. I
mean I had there's OJ Simpson action. I mean, he
was just a huge, huge, huge star. He was extremely charismatic,
he was doing things like I said he was. He
was one of the He was the first athlete that
had such big endorsements, you know what I mean, like
(27:12):
with hurts.
Speaker 4 (27:13):
You know, go O J. You know what I mean.
I mean, just huge man.
Speaker 5 (27:17):
And to see him fall that far and that quickly
is just you know, unbelievable. Then you had the issue,
the other issue of the social issue that came out
of it, because ultimately it became even bigger than Oja.
Speaker 4 (27:38):
As big as he was, because I.
Speaker 5 (27:40):
Think on one hand, there was the law enforcement was
on trial, you know what I mean, And it really
was because you gotta figure, this is right after the
Rodney King by right, and so it's the same city, right,
(28:00):
So La is right where the Rodney King came, which
is you know, nobody will ever forget seeing Rodney King.
I mean that was like a mini series seeing Rodney
King get beat. And then here you come with the O. J.
Simpson case and there you go, you you know what
I mean, so now you got the LAPD, the one
that just got through, you know, going through what they
(28:21):
did with the.
Speaker 4 (28:22):
Rodney King Rodney King thing. Now here you go.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
So you got a lot of people who were you know,
they saw it as the police being on trial, and
so when they were he was found not guilty, a
lot of people were extremely happy because it became about
the police, right, And so I think when people were
(28:47):
cheering and they saw all of these problems with the
LAPD on prime time sort of speak, because it wasn't
on prime you know, it was on I think CNN
maybe at that time.
Speaker 4 (29:01):
And to see him being.
Speaker 5 (29:04):
It was almost like the people who felt like they
were being mistreated by the LAPD and police around the
world felt vindicated, you see what I mean.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
So it became bigger than O. J. Simpson.
Speaker 5 (29:18):
Then you had the other element is you had Johnny Cochrane,
you know who obviously in LA everybody you know he
was a very popular attorney obviously in Los Angeles, but
you know around the world, who was also an extremely
charismatic person, brilliant mind. So now you have not only
(29:44):
you're being vindicated, the vindication, but it's also him being
the primary person being this articulate, well spoken, super swag attorney, right,
who happens to be a black man. Right, So then
you had that element to it, right, So you know,
(30:08):
so there were so many things that went and then
on the other hand, then you it became so racial
and a lot of it had to do with the
media had a lot to do with it, you know
what I mean. They played you know, not the Johnny
Cochran and the Dream Team is not the only one
that played the race card. Everybody was really playing the
race card.
Speaker 4 (30:28):
It was. It was definitely good TV.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
It sold a lot, you know, back when you know, unfortunately,
you know, media has gone has fallen from grace too
with social media, you know, but that's back in a
time where you know, you really had newspapers, you know
what I mean, Like journalism was like a real career
(30:54):
and now you know, it's it's it's become a problem.
But so that that was that was spectacular, Yeah, you
know what I mean.
Speaker 7 (31:04):
And I think I think, like like what you were
saying in terms of people felt vindicated. You know, you
had those people's like how can you cheer for a murderer?
Because I remember the TV. I remember sitting in front
of the TV when a verdict came in and people
you know, you know how they show these snippets from
everywhere and everybody just jumping up, Yeah, yeah, you know,
And and people looked at that differently.
Speaker 6 (31:25):
People looked at it, How can you cheer for this murderer? Right,
But it wasn't so much that you was cheering for
a murder. You were cheering that finally you you got
it right.
Speaker 7 (31:35):
You know, all this time that we seen this Rodney
King and everything else that came, you know, prior to
that that we were so used to seeing, you know,
in the in the in the in in in the media.
You know, because like you say, the media shines a
light on what they want to shine a light on.
You know, they don't shine the light on the stuff
that I won't say that that matters, but they won't
shine the light on stuff that they don't want to
(31:57):
want you really to see, you know. And they didn't
expect this outcome. They didn't expect this jury to come
back like they came. But then when the people start cheering,
they weren't looking like I said, they weren't looking at
people as cheering because they were happy some justice finding
got you know, served they was looking at it, go, oh,
(32:17):
you cheering for this murder.
Speaker 6 (32:19):
You know.
Speaker 7 (32:20):
It's just like when you've seen Barack Obama get voted in,
You've seen people cheer all over you know. It was
just that it was at that particular time, people was like, yes, finally,
you know, and so that's the way you have to
look at it, you know, and if you look at
it any other way, then you would be looking at
it wrong. And I think the people at that particular
time they were happy to see that you finally got
(32:41):
it right. But like you say, it shined the light
on the police at that particular time, because it's something
that we deal with every single day just living in
LA And it's not just it's not just happened to oj.
It happened to a whole lot of other individuals that
the spotlight have not been shined. And so that's why
we have the you know, the crime rate so great
(33:04):
in Los Angeles. That's why we have so many you know,
convictions in Los Angeles.
Speaker 6 (33:08):
And of course it continues, you.
Speaker 5 (33:10):
Know, he he became a very hated man, you know,
because people felt like, yeah, it.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
Was it was it was just it's bizarre. I remember when.
Speaker 5 (33:27):
And as as I told you, like, being a lawyer
is a second career for me. So when I came
after I came out to California to go to law school,
I took a class called Trial Practice and it's a
try It's a class that has very limited number of
(33:48):
people that can get into the class. I think it
was like fifteen people and it was taught by this
judge in la an La County judge and so we're in.
I got into the class and there were people And
what happens is when you have those kind of classes,
there's people who can kind of audit the class and
(34:10):
sit outside and wait for people to drop the class.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
That's that's just how huge it was. So we probably
had fifteen people inside the.
Speaker 5 (34:17):
Classroom and then maybe another twenty to twenty five people
or more trying to get into the class.
Speaker 4 (34:24):
And I remember the professor.
Speaker 5 (34:30):
Says, and I don't know what prompted him to say,
but he says, I don't know. He says, I don't
really care about what you think about oh J. Simpson,
I don't care what you think about the dream Team.
They did their job. The next time I went to class.
(34:52):
There was nobody waiting.
Speaker 6 (34:57):
We're getting into the class.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
Well, I mean, people just didn't want want to be
in the classroom. I mean that's I'm like, man, that
is crazy.
Speaker 5 (35:04):
That's that's just how huge and you know how soft
of a subject that is, you know.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
What I mean.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
And I'm like, this is crazy. Nobody wanted to go
to class because he said that. And you know, I
realized just how you know, sensitive of a subject it
is when you talk about the O. J. Simpson case
and people, you know, really saw that the cheering, I
mean because you saw the reactions where you'd see people
(35:32):
like they show like subway, like people were in the
different places like in New York, you know where you
could see like a group of people and you'd see
a group of black people in a group of white people,
and the black people cheering white people matters, you know what.
And you know that was crazy and that and you
could see that there was you know, a division, clearly
(35:55):
a division.
Speaker 4 (35:57):
At that point. Uh.
Speaker 5 (35:59):
And it and it's just you know, I mean, it
just shows just the differences among people. And and there
your narrative, man, your narrative dictates the way you see it.
That's why when you choose juries, you know, and they
say that race doesn't matter when you choose jeries, it does.
I mean everybody's narrative it's different. I mean, you know,
(36:24):
there's no if button adds about it. The way you
see things. Always say that the presumption of innocence, right,
you know, everyone wants to believe that they can be
fair in their minds, they really want to believe that
they can be fair, and people get really upset when
(36:45):
you point out the fact that they have biases. The
reality of it is is everybody has biases. There is
no exception to that. And if not understanding that then
you begin then that's one of the most dangerous things,
not to understand that we all have biases. And when
you're looking at the criminal justice system and the presumption
(37:08):
of innocence, and I'm of the belief that the presumption
of innocence is the most sacred thing that we have
in our country. Is the presumption of innocence. With all
the things that we have wrong with this country and
clearly we're far from being perfect, that presumption of innocence
makes us the best act in town. But that's just
(37:30):
my opinion. It don't always work right. We know that,
but in theory, that's a code doctrine, right, and so
thinking of that, there are people who don't believe, are
(37:52):
believed that it's anomaly for the police to arrest the
wrong person, for the prosecute to prosecute the wrong person,
or for the judge to allow such prosecution to take place.
There are people who, in their heart of hearts and
bless their heart, believe that the problem is that the
(38:20):
presumption of innocence and that ideology, a strong ideology like that,
don't fit in the same space. Because if you're presuming
someone to be innocent, you you know, realistically, you have
to presume that the police arrested the wrong person, that
(38:41):
the prosecutor is prosecuting the wrong person, and that the
judge is allowing the wrong prosecution to take place in
his courtroom.
Speaker 4 (38:51):
You see what I'm saying. You have to presume that.
Speaker 5 (38:55):
And there are people who you know, have a narrative
if that goes with that, that co signs that those
beliefs and those are the ones that really need to
be on a jury, right, And and we oftentimes just
(39:16):
don't get that right when it comes to that. I mean,
we talk about it people want to believe it, but
I think that sometimes you're subconsciously it comes out because
I know that sometimes when I'm in trials, you have
judges that I think that they believe that they're fair,
but sometimes some of the rulings that they make is unfair.
(39:39):
And a lot of prosecutors prosecute cases that clearly they
shouldn't prosecute.
Speaker 4 (39:44):
It's clearly unfair.
Speaker 5 (39:47):
And and so that's that's that's a huge problem. And
we need to change the jury system for sure, and
we've talked about that, you know, and you have to
make sure that you have people that represent a cross
section of the community. And you know, people get offended
when you say those types of things, But we have
(40:07):
to have that conversation, you.
Speaker 4 (40:10):
Know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (40:10):
I don't I don't suggest, I don't. You know, there's
a lot of things that I'm ignorant too, you know,
and I'm not going to act like that. I don't
have biases, you know what I mean. I could begin
with one. You know, I'm an old country boy, right,
(40:32):
I was raised in Tennessee.
Speaker 4 (40:35):
Yeah, and.
Speaker 5 (40:41):
My biggest influence was my grandfather, who was a hard, hard,
hard worker.
Speaker 4 (40:50):
Right.
Speaker 5 (40:53):
He don't didn't believe, no shortcuts, didn't believe. And he
used to always say that you eat what you catch.
You don't eat just because you're hungry, right, that was
his mato. And he could not stand a lazy person.
I'm the same way. If you're lazy, I can't even
(41:13):
hide it. I just can't even be around you.
Speaker 7 (41:17):
I just can't.
Speaker 4 (41:18):
I mean, I just can't stand those people.
Speaker 6 (41:21):
Man.
Speaker 5 (41:21):
I'm like, you know, if I see, if I get
the sense that a person is lazy, then you know
what I mean. I just cannot stand lazy people. I
just absolutely can't some people now, and it kind of
feeds over, Like you know, people think my kids think
their generation that I just have this thing about, you know,
because I do tease them about their generation. How you know,
(41:44):
lazy and sensitive they really are. That's another thing. You
can't talk about sensitivity anymore, right that you know the
benefit of growing up in an error where we were
not you were expecting to be. And you know, I'll
probably get in trust, get in trouble for this, you know,
(42:05):
like a.
Speaker 4 (42:05):
Man is a man as a woman as a woman,
and that's you know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (42:08):
You gotta just you know, either put your big pants
on or do what you gotta do. And you know,
we rode bikes and we fill off of bikes and
you know what I mean. So nowadays, you know, we
you can't you know, they don't know how to take
stress because you know, you're you know, like for example,
(42:31):
like kids, you see a kid riding, they got a
helmet on, and shoulder pads on and knee pads and
you know what I mean.
Speaker 4 (42:38):
And then we was kids, I mean, because they don't
want you to scribe. You don't want you to you
know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (42:42):
So I used to always say, the biggest lesson that
my mother taught me was how to take a loss.
Speaker 4 (42:46):
Yeah, now they get everybody gets a trophy, you.
Speaker 5 (42:51):
Know what I mean, And the biggest and I think
my mother for that to today, I couldn't quit anything
if I started it, I couldn't quit, right, I you know, uh,
you know. So and then you had this whole thing
about you know, being tough, you know, sucking it up,
(43:13):
being tough, not crying those sort of things. And now
that seems like we call it toxic toxic masculinity, right,
And that's on their time, right, So I mean, and
and and I see that now that we're going towards
and I know we're moving away a little bit from
(43:34):
the OJ thing, but how do we get on this subject?
But anyway, so and we're moving away from then and
and and then basically I think that it there's a
degree of I think our kids suffer from that because
you have to be able to A kid has to know.
That's why they go to school and shoot up everybody.
(43:55):
If you don't know how to take stress, what are
you going to do when something becomes stressful? You get
when I got teased, I know, we used to say.
Nowadays you couldn't do that. If I went home and said, hey,
a kid pushed me at school, then my mother's gonna say,
or my grandfather, whoever.
Speaker 4 (44:12):
Is it's going to say, you need to go in
you know, you need to.
Speaker 5 (44:15):
Knuckle up exactly Nowadays, then the parent go up to
the school and then they might school you know what
I mean.
Speaker 4 (44:23):
And it's just like, you know, we try to protect people.
Speaker 5 (44:25):
And so when you get into real life and you're
you're dealing with stressful situations, you don't know how to
do it because nobody allowed you to do that. Everybody's sensitive,
right and everybody's about the bag, right, everybody's about the bag.
It's all about, you know, getting money, and there's no value.
(44:46):
So when you teach a generation of people that life
is about getting the bag and life is about money,
then what would you do for it?
Speaker 6 (44:54):
Correct?
Speaker 5 (44:55):
So you know, when I grew up, life was about
what you wouldn't do. Right now, life is about what
you will do exactly, And the reality of it is
is that people are, you know, unfortunately in a situation
where they will you know, it's like, do what you
got to do to get the buying Do what you
(45:16):
do you got to get that money, you know, I mean,
it's about economics, but it's not. But it don't matter
how much money you get if you don't have any values,
it don't even matter because millionaires and billionaires kill themselves too.
Speaker 6 (45:28):
Yeah, you know what I mean exactly.
Speaker 5 (45:30):
So you know, so that's that's a that's a something
that was.
Speaker 6 (45:35):
On my mind.
Speaker 7 (45:37):
No, you went into talking about your bias of course, yeah,
about the bias and stuff like that, but I'll let you.
Speaker 6 (45:44):
Know what it is right now exactly guess how we
went there.
Speaker 7 (45:47):
But yeah, when you were talking about you know, I
had this question for you because I know we've been
talking about it for countless years, and I don't think
that there's been a mass push, you know, in regards
to it. I think we we of it several times,
but I don't think it caught any ear. I don't
see no mass push for it. And that is how
to revap that jury, you know that we talked about
(46:10):
and I can't tell you, man, I think from day one,
since we came on air, we've always talked about that.
And it's been how many years later, and we still
haven't seen no type of jury reform. We still haven't
seen anything. So this cycle continues. You think we'll ever
get to that point?
Speaker 4 (46:27):
I don't know. I mean there's a couple of things
that they got to do.
Speaker 5 (46:29):
First of all, I think that they're gonna have to
start compensating people for Jerry duty, you know, because people
from different social economic backgrounds can do Jerry duty, I mean,
can take off if your employer doesn't pay for it.
Who can do that no matter who they are? And
you have to ask yourself this question, there is a
(46:53):
benefit that So in other words, what type the social
economic aspect of it is important?
Speaker 6 (46:58):
Correct?
Speaker 5 (46:59):
You know, you can't say that everybody every jury, can't
you know, be just all. We're not saying all juries
could be all black folks and all juries should be
all white folks, but it should include certain certain economic
classes because that makes a difference, you.
Speaker 4 (47:16):
Know what I mean.
Speaker 5 (47:18):
And so what it does is it excludes people regardless
of their race or gender from being on a jury
because they can't afford to do it. And we know
certain certain groups are actually are you know, economically, you know,
are challenged. So we have to do something about that.
That's the first thing, and I don't know if they
(47:38):
have anything pending to address that issue.
Speaker 4 (47:42):
There also have to.
Speaker 5 (47:43):
Change the rules about kicking people off juries. There is
what they call a bats and Wheeler motion right that
that's because it came from the cat those particular cases.
And so if it looks like a prosecutor is systematic
kicking off certain jurors, then.
Speaker 4 (48:05):
It could be it could be challenged.
Speaker 5 (48:06):
But the problem is that even if they find that
that's happening, if you can find if you can recant
or rebut with a race neutral reason like they were
not interested or this person said he didn't like the police.
And see that's another problem. The problem is that your
(48:29):
answers to certain questions are based upon your experiences. So
someone says, hey, has anybody ever had any negative experiences
with police?
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Right?
Speaker 4 (48:42):
You know who's going to raise their hands?
Speaker 5 (48:44):
And now that could be a reason to kick them
off the jury. So some of them are basically you know,
they're bait, and so are questions that are going to
be you know, it's going to impact certain people differently,
differently than other people. And the people that have negative
experiences with the police are probably the people that you
(49:08):
want them the jury, you see what I'm saying. So
then when they strike the juror. Because there's two types
of challenges, you can do it for cause or you
can do it for peremptory challenges. That means that's for
any reason. So you can, like if a person says, well,
I'll never find a man in a guilty or I'll
never vote not guilty, you know what I mean, Or
(49:29):
I think if he was innocent, he wouldn't be sitting there,
so that's cause. But when peremptory challenges, which could be
anywhere from ten to twenty, that mean east Side can
kick off ten or twenty people, then you know, you
say I want, I think to think and excuse Jerry
and seat number four right objection bachelor Willing Willer, you
(49:53):
go back in the back and just say, you hones,
he's been kicking off nothing but African Americans or Hispanics
or whatever.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
And he says, well, it's granted.
Speaker 5 (50:03):
And then he can say, how do you rebut that, well,
y're of the reason I kicked off Jurancy number four
is because he said that he's had bad experiences with
police officers, because he said that his cousin got set
up by the police. Right, so you know what I mean,
and then that might fly and there you go. You
see what I'm saying. So you know that's the problem.
(50:24):
And I think that there has to be checked. They
have to check those types of questions and change that.
Speaker 4 (50:33):
Somehow. Take that into consideration. Now it's a lot. Now.
Speaker 5 (50:37):
Newsome had came down with some laws that are the
legislature in California has made it more difficult, supposedly to
do that.
Speaker 4 (50:49):
So there are some laws in it that are coming down,
but not like that. It's not.
Speaker 5 (50:53):
It should be rapid and it should be federalized. It
should be federal you know what I mean? Yeah, so
but we you know, that's a problem, man. We need
to address it, and it needs to be And another
thing too, is that there's not enough emphasis on it.
(51:14):
You know, people aren't really talking about jury reform the
way that they should. They're they're you know, they're talking
about everything else, like the police. I mean, there's people
that just go under the radar, like the DA's and
the jury commissioners, and the jury system goes under radar.
(51:34):
Like you go to most places and you say, who's
the DA.
Speaker 4 (51:37):
In your county? Most people don't even know who the
DA is.
Speaker 5 (51:43):
And so you know, we we can pay a little
bit more attention to that, which has an impact on.
Speaker 4 (51:48):
Because they run strictly on convictions.
Speaker 5 (51:52):
You know, I got a ninety nine conviction rate, and
if people come up and say, look, you know, since
you got nine percent, what does that mean?
Speaker 4 (52:03):
Just got you're convicting, that's not the issue. And maybe if.
Speaker 5 (52:06):
Somebody really, you know, went at them, then you would
change the culture of the DA's office about how they
choose to prosecute people, you know what I mean.
Speaker 7 (52:15):
Yeah, Yeah, Like I said, I just never seen a
big push. I've always seen push for all these different
other things but I've never seen anything with regards to
to reform that, you know, And I just think the time,
the time and the errors here for them to be
able to do something like that, because it does make
(52:37):
a big difference. Like I think we always talked about
as far as like where they pool a jury from,
and they always say the DMV and stuff like that.
But yet when you bring somebody up in Compton and
lives Way and Crito's or cheto Hills and stuff like that,
then what DMV is you getting your information from?
Speaker 6 (52:54):
You know?
Speaker 7 (52:54):
That was always the question, you know, because I've always
been a firm believer that if you take someone who's
never been you know, never was born or raised in
a particular area or geographical location, it's going to be
hard for them to understand the culture that exists there
and and and be able to understand the plight of
the individuals that that that that actually reside in that
(53:18):
particular area. So it's going to be hard for them
to kind of adjust their way of thinking to understand, uh,
where that individual who was being on that's being on
trial is going to be hard for them to understand
their reality. So I just think that that that definitely
has to be addressed and and it you know, because
(53:41):
if it doesn't, then we're going to continue to deal
with this cycle of this disincarceration rate, you know, so
you know, and you know it stems back to you know,
I mean, we're not going to see I don't believe
we're going to see anything unto the level that we
see of course in the o J case, you know
ever before, I mean, that was that was epic. They
(54:01):
I don't think you're going to be able to see that,
you know, in some of these.
Speaker 5 (54:03):
Cane to get that number of I mean because predominantly
African American jurren. Yeah, I mean, wow, that was crazy, man,
I mean it was it was something else man. Yeah,
you know, I mean, and that it does make a
difference a lot of times. But also what happens with
you know, in these cases. I mean, another issue that
(54:26):
we have is the things that they admit.
Speaker 4 (54:30):
They allow things to be admitted into evidence.
Speaker 5 (54:33):
Yeah, I mean, because you know, they they give you something,
but there's always this back door way of doing like,
for example, gang evidence, Like the legislature might say, hey,
you cannot use gang evidence in the case in chief.
Let's say a guy is accused of murder, but it's
also based upon gang enhancement. So the so the way
(54:53):
it's supposed to happen is you got to be convicted
of murder first. But the let's just say robbery, let's
use robbery. Let's just say it's a robbery, and they're
trying to say you're doing it for the benefit of
the game. So the gang evidence, Let's say, if you
get convicted of robbery, then they can do a gang enhancement,
(55:15):
which I don't like that either, because that's.
Speaker 4 (55:17):
Really the new Jim Crow.
Speaker 5 (55:20):
But the problem with the robbery is the problem with
it is that now you can do a couple of things.
Speaker 4 (55:27):
It can be introduced for motive, it could be five minutes.
Speaker 5 (55:31):
It could be introduced for identification, it could be introduced
for different reasons. And then they got backdoor ways of
bringing and so now you've can taminated the jury because
they think that the person is you know what I mean,
you know, so that has to change because there's all
kinds of I mean, they let everything, I mean so
much stuff in. Like they say identification, let's just say
(55:55):
that a person has a moniker and let's just say
as moniker as monster. And let's just say, well, we're
going to show that that is his moniker. So we're
gonna bring it to evidence. Because when the person did
the did the shooting, or did the robbery, that they
said that the the other person of the co defendant
(56:15):
called them monster.
Speaker 4 (56:17):
Then they're gonna go to his Facebook page, you know
what I mean.
Speaker 5 (56:21):
And then he's got monster across his across his chest
right with his set in his hood, you see what
I mean. And then they're gonna show it over and
over and over again. Now you ain't worried about the robbery.
You just know this dude's monster from this set in
this hood and and so, and that's how they get down,
(56:45):
you know.
Speaker 4 (56:45):
That's how they do it.
Speaker 5 (56:46):
And that and they contaminate you instead of doing the
right so and they know exactly.
Speaker 4 (56:51):
What they're doing. The whole idea is to bring in things.
Speaker 5 (56:55):
Let's give you give you an example, and real quick,
if you were if a person is accused, if a
girl accuses a guy of pimping, you cannot use in
evidence the fact that she was a prostitute before.
Speaker 4 (57:10):
That's in'tadmissible. Huh, How's that it's in't admissible?
Speaker 5 (57:17):
But if he has been a pimp before, that could
be admissible. Wow, you see what I'm saying. You see
how they get how the game is, you know, or the.
Speaker 4 (57:30):
You know.
Speaker 5 (57:32):
Yeah, even sometimes when there's cases where a person is
made a prior allegation or something, you want to bring
it in to show that maybe this one is not is.
Speaker 4 (57:43):
Not proper either.
Speaker 5 (57:44):
I mean, you know, it's really cold, and it makes
it really difficult for someone who is innocent or overcharged. See,
that's a huge issue. People don't understand that sometimes people
are overcharged like they didn't do Like the guy really
and robbed nobody, he actually basically did something else, you
know what I mean.
Speaker 4 (58:06):
Maybe yeah, yeah, it's crazy, man.
Speaker 5 (58:08):
Maybe the guy was firing the gun up in the
air and they got him for attempted murder when it
was really uh you know, shooting a farm in public,
or maybe brandishing the fiarm, not.
Speaker 6 (58:23):
The fact that he was a gang member.
Speaker 5 (58:24):
They can tie yeah, because he's shooting up in the
air and there's like five other people over there, you know.
I mean, but so, I mean, it's so many different things,
but they're always going to go for the biggest thing.
And then it's the whole idea is to get as
much time as you possibly can against somebody.
Speaker 4 (58:40):
It's crazy. It's a cold game, man, you know.
Speaker 5 (58:44):
Yeah, yeah, so yeah, man, but my man, Old Jay
and that.
Speaker 4 (58:49):
But we forgot to talk about the fact that he
just passed away. Yeah guy for cancer. Yeah you know,
and uh yeah, that's a know.
Speaker 5 (59:00):
I mean, like I said, man, I mean, there's a
it's amazing, you know with the guy, the life that
he had before all that stuff. I mean, like I said,
people don't remember.
Speaker 7 (59:09):
They don't remember that, remember that one moment in your
life that that you know, and that's and that's a
sad reality that that, you know, you get that one
blemage and not saying that it's a minor blemage, but
it's just people, you know, people's perception and what they think,
you know. But you know, even so, his whole life
was run just because And before we go.
Speaker 5 (59:29):
We got to say this. When you heard about what
what's Bruce Jenner's name?
Speaker 4 (59:33):
One minute?
Speaker 6 (59:34):
Oh yeah, I forget it. Yeah, I know you're talking
about he.
Speaker 4 (59:37):
Was dogging about, man and not to mess it.
Speaker 5 (59:39):
But you know, he got in trouble for allegedly killing
somebody in the car accident.
Speaker 4 (59:43):
That's that's been the big thing exactly.
Speaker 5 (59:45):
But anyway, we'll appreciate everybody for tuning in for this
edition of Justice Watch. We'll see you next week, same time,
same place, same channel, and until that time, stay blessed.
Speaker 2 (01:00:00):
NBC News on KCAA Lomel sponsored by Teamsters Local nineteen
thirty two, Protecting the Future of Working Families Teamsters nineteen
thirty two
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.