Today, it’s safe to say that most impartial observers believe that there is, at the very least, a fair chance that O.J. Simpson is guilty of the murders of his ex-wife and her friend. How, then, was he acquitted? While the trial’s outcome obviously hinged on a variety of factors, the legal experts who spoke with PBS for their analysis of the case seemed to agree that, somewhat fittingly, a football analogy might best explain Simpson’s acquittal: The determined, experienced defense came ready to play. The overconfident, inexperienced prosecution did not — and Simpson’s “Dream Team” was essentially able to game a flawed system.
One member of that team, though, doesn’t see it that way. Alan Dershowitz, one of Simpson’s attorneys, opined during his sitdown with PBS that the Simpson case was one in which the system actually worked too well for the comfort of those watching the trial unfold on their TV screens. “The public doesn’t like the system,” he said. “The public much prefers the old system … in which the prosecution really doesn’t have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt; the prosecution really doesn’t have to abide by the Constitution; the prosecution really doesn’t have to play fair with all the evidence. The public saw the system working, and they didn’t like it.”
