I thought that Johnnie Cochran did a fantastic job in his closing "discussions" at creating reasonable doubt. He did a lot of things that played a factor in this. He relaxes the jury by using words like discussion instead of argument. He tells the jury that they are just as important as the defense attorneys and prosecution because they have the final say after hearing both arguments. Once he did his best to relax and calm the jury he started pointing out discrepancies in the prosecutions case. He does not one time try to prove that OJ did not commit the crime, he simply tried to show that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did. He then reminds the jury that if any of them have any reasonable doubt that they cannot convict and reminds them what reasonable doubt is. I think that through the whole thing, he did a great job and addressed the issues he wanted to in the most effective order he could. I think that the order that he used and his tone of voice and pace were just as important as the arguments he was making. He did a great job and as we all know was able to create enough doubt to get a not-guilty verdict. vhammer123
You are right, throughout the whole discussion he said all the right things, brought up all the right points. Just enough to win over the jury and make the question the case just enough to have reasonable doubt. You also make a good point about the tone of his voice and pace, absolutely everything he did was perfect and spot on. Fruitloop123
i agree, his defense was the reasonable doubt the whole time and it worked in his advantage, and i agree with the tone of his voice and use of words is a great way to win the jury over, he reminds of a martin Luther king type speaker. i think he is very respectable.
Just something to point out that maybe not all of us realize, while Johnny Cochran gave a very persuasive closing argument, the prosecution is also very good at doing what they do. You may watch the prosecution and feel the defendant is guilty and then watch the defense and think he or she is not guilty. One advantage I think the defense has is that they get to give their closing argument after the prosecution. Because of this, their arguments are fresher in the minds of the jury. ISP123
One of the things i agree with most was when you said he never tried to say that OJ didnt commit this crime, he just created reasonable doubt. There was so much evidence against OJ and Cochran just tweaked the minds of the jurors to see his point of view. He turned all the evidence away from OJ and the jurors bought it. One of the best things he did was make the jurors feel good. He told them how much they mean to the case and he made them feel much more comfortable. That could be something that swayed the jury. Either way he was one of the best defense attorneys we have seen in a long time.USA123
I agree he did do an amazing job of creating scenarios for them to think reasonable doubt. OJ should of been found guilty but due to Mr. Johnnie Cochran he was pled not guilty. Cochran twisted the minds of those jurors making it seem like OJ really had nothing to do with it when everyone in their right mind knows this RICH man did. He was a magnificent attorney. Scorpio 123
This was a my first watching this or even really hearing about it in great detail. I honestly think Johnnie Cochran did a more than excellent job on his "closing discussion". Even the way he said that instead of closing arguments was genius. Without Johnnie I truly think that OJ Simpson would have been in jail. Or at least he should of been. There is just no arguing against Johnnie. Just how he said things, what he said, how he said it. So smart and he did such a good job of giving reasonable doubt to the jury, which was exactly what he was going for. All he needed to do was try and convince them that maybe, just maybe OJ did not do it. I still think that OJ Simpson should have went to jail but Cochran won that battle for him and Cochran deserved to win that case. Fruitloop123
I thought that Johnnie Cochran was an awesome defense attorney first off. He's ways of capturing the jury attention was outside. I liked how he talked passionately and speaks on the key points in the California vs. OJ Simpson case. I also liked how Johnnie Cochran tells the jury that their just as important as anyone thats working this case, as far as the defense attorney(himself) and the prosecutor (Barry Shack). Johnnie Cochran basically stated the reasonable doubts in the California vs. OJ Simpson case and key points so that the jury may change their mind. In the video he also reminds the jury that if they had reasonable doubt that wouldn't be able to convict OJ Simpson. I agree with @Vhammer123 that Johnnie Cochran does not one time try to prove that OJ Simpson did not commit the crime, he simply tried to show that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did done the killing. Overall I think that Johnnie Cochran was great at his job. And in this particular case he did good at creating reasonable doubt. Great video!. Secret'A'123
I agree with you. He did a great job of hitting all of the major issues in the prosecutions case in order to create a reasonable doubt. I think that his passion, tone of voice and the pace that he set while talking were also key in keeping the jury drawn in and focused. I know if I as sitting there for 6 hours a day listening to a couple people talk I would get really bored so I think that his passion had a lot to do with keeping the juries attention. All of these things together led to OJ being set free. vhammer123
Even when I was watching the video as Johnnie was stating the potential reasonable doubt in every piece of evidence, I was even starting to second guess myself! I'm glad that I wasn't a part of the jury, trying to rack my brain around all of the evidence and sifting through what was truly at the scene and what was planted by officials. BadWolf123
Johnnie Cochran did exactly what he was supposed to do in his closing argument. He brought up all the points that could create a reasonable doubt in the jurors minds. He pointed out all of the flaws in the prosecutions case such as how the glove and the hat were neatly placed when everything else was strung all over, also how one of the officers was racist and finally he connected OJ with the jurors in bringing up that if you live alone its very hard to establish an alibi. Johnnie Cochran didnt try to prove OJ was inocent he just focused on creating reasonable doubt which i believe allowed OJ to be set free. He also reminds them that if they do have a reasonable doubt that they can not convict OJ. Overall this video was a great demonstration on how reasonable doubt can be used as a defense stratigy dabster123
Yeah I agree that Johnnie Cochran was a very good defense attorney. Johnnie Cochran did a great job a representing OJ. Simpson and creating reasonable doubt in the juors mind. For a second Johnnie Cochran had me second guessing. I also agree with the others I liked how he pointed out the flaws in this case. Even though Johnnie Cochran did a good job at creating reasonable doubts and backing up his evidence, I still thinks he's guilty and should've did some time for committing the crime that's my opinion. This was my first time actually seeing Johnnie Cochran in the court room he did an amazing job. I enjoyed watching him do his job. Secret A123
i think he did a great job on his closing thoughts, he hits every single point and argument dead on, i feel like its extremely hard to beat this guy in a court room he uses great words and knows his facts, if i was in need of a lawyer hed be the first person id call. he also uses words like discussions instead of arguments which shows his maturity. i think he did a great job mention all the reasonable doubt in the discussion and he had the jury double thinking their choice which is cool he hands down used it has his main strategy to win this argument.'
I think that Johnnie Cochran was a very good defense attorney, as he literally left no stone unturned. He used neutral words to display a laid back attitude so that it would take all the media pressure off of the jury. He also buttered up the jury by encouraging them to seek the truth through the evidence and how they were a huge part of the court process. It was crazy how he was able to create such reasonable doubt through every piece of evidence that was against OJ Simpson. If I was part of that jury, I would be second guessing myself as I was trying to determine the truth behind the crime scene. Johnnie even came up with a slogan that would stick in everyone’s minds,” If it doesn’t fit, acquit.” Even though in the end, his hard work ends in success, I think it was getting ridiculous when he was claiming several pieces of evidence as being planted by the police. BadWolf123
I agree. He used reasonable doubt to OJ's advantage. However, at some point I think lawyers should have to stop and think if they should help a possible murderer because I honestly think he was involved. rogir123
In this video the defense lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, picked the jury apart and practically formed them in his hands like putty. Mr. Cochran took every piece of the prosecutions argument and every word and dissected it, pointing out each little fault, and even character flaws in the officers that gave testimonies against O.J. Johnnie Cochran even created a reasonable doubt in the juries mind on plausible evidence. He also then spoke of how O.J. couldn't have done it because he has such a "wonderful" life and how he had too much to live for to just throw it all away on something that horrendous. Cochran took several minutes to greatly stress the importance of family and how good of a father that O.J. has been to his children. He also played the guilt card by saying that the childrens' mother had already been killed, that the jury shouldn't take away their father too. Cochran had given O.J.s alibi and argued that it could be totally true, and that the prosecution had no witnesses or believable evidence to show otherwise. He then used picture showing as he was explaining how reasonable doubt could be seen or at least questionable in every aspect of the prosecution. Cochran stressed and stressed what reasonable doubt is and how it must be used in the criminal justice system. Though it was irritating looking at the big picture, Cochran's strategy and the way he presented it was quite impressive. Para123
i agree that by planting evidence in the juries mind, it gave them a feel that oj was innocent and there wasnt enough evidence to prove him guilty. he stated facts that his wife is already dead and by sending oj to jail without enough evidence is wrong because hes being takin away from his children, hes all they have. Hoopz123
I also agree with the point that Johnnie Cochran was planting the seed of doubt in the juries minds by picking out little things that the jury could find to be a little fishy to the point to cause them to doubt and vote in the favor of his client and not only that he used the children as leverage to pull the guilt trick by saying that the children had already lost one parent TeAma123
in this video johnnie cochran formed the jury into separate parts, johnnies made it seem that oj simpson was innocent due to planting reasonable doubts in the juries mind, so the jury would think that there isnt enough evidence to charge oj simpson with the murder of his wife. he made it seem very persuading. Hoopz123
Johnny Cochran was the defense lawyer for OJ Simpson's murder trial. Because he was able to feed the jury little tweaks that put even a slight possibility of reasonable doubt into the jury's mind, he was able to get OJ off with no conviction. One point I found to be comical was the point of one investigator who was openly racist. Because of this, Cochran stated that he had planted evidence that they were using to convict him of the two murders. Cochran states that the hat and gloves were placed too neatly for it to have been OJ because in the case of a fight like what had happened, perfect and open placement of gloves were too obvious. The true killer would have at least tried to get rid of them. In my opinion, it is this and the point of no one seeing OJ that night that makes the prosecution's evidence a little less credible. rogir123
Johnnie Cochran was probably the best defense attorney we have seen in a very long time. I mean he got OJ off the hook for murder. That is not a very easy thing to do when the case seemed cut and dry that he was guilty. He made the jury feel a certain way in his closing discussion that made them change their minds. He kept a very neutral vocabulary throughout his discussion and made sure the jury saw things the way he wanted them to. Its almost like he made OJ out to be the victim. I like how he was saying the cop was a racist and planted evidence because though its most likely not true about planting evidence, however he was so savvy with his words that he made them actually believe that. He also had a picture of OJ's kid and was telling the jury not to take both of her parents away from her, like she was the victim. So what i took out of it was he kept deflecting evidence away from OJ and pointing it back at everyone else but the one on trial. All Cochran had to do was put reasonable doubt in the jurors mind to get OJ off, and he did it. USA123
In this video, Johnnie Cochran is seen presenting his closing arguments to the jury. It is impressive with how many points of reasonable doubt that he conveys to the jury. Criminal trials are a very interesting thing to witness and I believe that nobody can truly understand the process of a criminal trial until they witness one. I was pretty young when the OJ trial happened, about ten or eleven years old, so at that time I didn’t truly comprehend what was going on but I was able to understand the main idea. The thing I remember the most was how long the trial lasted and how much publicity it got, it was aired live every day. A few years ago when I lived in Hawaii, there was a very notorious murder case that received a lot of attention, mainly only in Hawaii though. A white federal agent in Hawaii for a diplomatic security detail shot and killed a local man. The defense claimed that it was a justified shooting because of self-defense and the prosecution claimed the agent was under the influence of alcohol and that deadly force was not warranted. I mention this because it was this case that I followed beginning to end and was very educational to me. The very structured way the process worked is what impressed me the most. One thing I learned about closing arguments is that the jury cannot base their verdict off of opening statements or the closing arguments. They must only base their verdict off of the evidence that was introduced by the prosecution and the defense. The closing arguments are used by each side to summarize the evidence they introdudced during the case. Often the process of introducing evidence by the prosecution and defense can take weeks or even months so the attorneys use the closing arguments to refresh their memories and the defense uses that opportunity to squeeze some reasonable doubt in as well. If the case isn’t something that you feel associated with then it may be kind of hard to watch becuasee they can get quite boring but the next time a trial happens that hits close to home, I highly recommend watching it to learn about courtroom procedure. When it is a case you are personally interested in, it is much easier to follow. ISP123
The Trial of OJ Simpson was probably the most intense trial I have seen besides Michael Jackson when it comes to celebrities. For John Cochran to get both of these popular men off of pretty outrages cases, he must be doing something right. To show in this video he was discussing the closing argument and he was right on point about everything, very persuasive. Cochran continued to give some what legitimate reasons for why this case was all "reasonable doubt" . He gave reasons such as the racist officer Mark Firming placed all the evidence out and tried to frame OJ, there was suppose ably missing blood, using US against them like we were not from America, OJs limo driver Alan Park didn't seem to have a clue about anything. He continued to say OJ is not guilty because of reasonable doubt. He was one of the best attorneys I have seen, he was on point and dug deeper then anyone would think, coming up with scenarios and how everything played out. I can see why Cochran stated everything he did so the jury would see more to the story then what "they thought". He tried to make the jury feel bad about OJs daughter losing her mother and if he pled guilty they would be taking her father away as well, Cochran even brought up OJs parents as if they lost a daughter, it was their daughter in law what remorse would they have? I did get more of an idea on how the courtroom works. It was very interesting especially to see how OJ was found not guilty for murdering 2 innocent people. Scorpio 123.
In his closing arguement Johnnie Cochran tries to win over the jury in his closing statement by being polite and wording his words carefully so as to butter up the jury while he instilled doubt in the minds of the jurors so as for them to sway his way to find his client not guilty he also points out that the term alibi states that if they have any doubt no matter how little that they must find him not guilty and then continues to go on telling his version of the senerio Not only that he also then tries to question the credibility of the detective and tries to imply that he could of planted evidence he also then uses his kids as leverage by pointing out that he came home because his little girl had a concert so as to make him look as to be a good dedicated father and how he would never go and kill his wife when he knew that his children would be the ones to find her and that he would never do that he basically tries to shame anyone who doesnt believe that hes a good and decent person not only that he tries to say how impossible it could of been for him to have done it without being recognized because how known of a person he is and how he also keeps fitting in those two words reasonable doubt into almost everything he said so as to sear it into the minds of the jury so that they would be more likely to vote in his way and he basically pretty much just tries to make the example senerio thats being used against his client to look completely absurd TeAma123
I agree with you. His attorney definitely helped him win his case over. He used everything he can to win and I think that is shady when someone is clearly guilty. I guess money really does buy everything in this day and age. I just think if he didn't have his lawyer that he would have been toast. HRT 123
The OJ Simpson trial was one of the most interesting and intense moments in time. It was long and it seemed as though time stood still. While I was not even born yet, I still hear one of the most famous statements that was said by OJ Simpson's attorney. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." I have heard many stories about this trial and many opinions. It makes me sad that from many things that were said, it seemed to be very racial slanted. I'm black, and while I was not born yet, I feel he was guilty. It makes me angry that while evidence seemed to indicate that he was guilty of killing to innocent people, it was his fame and money... and even his race that helped him be found innocent. In the meantime, his children have grown up with no parents and two families without their loved ones. His attorneys were just as dishonest as a used car salesman, but they did a great job at defending OJ.... HMMM.. I wonder if I did something like OJ even though I am also a black man, would the outcome be the same, Or would I get the death penalty? Nolove123
I think OJ Simpson trial showed the real world and what money can buy you. He bought himself the best lawyer out there and his lawyer got the job done. His lawyer made every single piece of evidence seem as if it has been compromised. The lawyer created a sense of doubt in everyone's mind. He even had me believing him for a few minutes. I was impressed by the way he laid down the facts. It was quite brilliant, but if the person is a murder I feel as if the lawyer is too for letting OJ get away with it. His attorney sold everyone their story and created unreasonable doubt in everyone's mind. For a lawyer I know who I would go after if I did something bad! They played every trick in the book including racism. I think that is something different for a trial. It was quite brilliant though. HRT123
I thought that Johnnie Cochran did a fantastic job in his closing "discussions" at creating reasonable doubt. He did a lot of things that played a factor in this. He relaxes the jury by using words like discussion instead of argument. He tells the jury that they are just as important as the defense attorneys and prosecution because they have the final say after hearing both arguments. Once he did his best to relax and calm the jury he started pointing out discrepancies in the prosecutions case. He does not one time try to prove that OJ did not commit the crime, he simply tried to show that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did. He then reminds the jury that if any of them have any reasonable doubt that they cannot convict and reminds them what reasonable doubt is. I think that through the whole thing, he did a great job and addressed the issues he wanted to in the most effective order he could. I think that the order that he used and his tone of voice and pace were just as important as the arguments he was making. He did a great job and as we all know was able to create enough doubt to get a not-guilty verdict. vhammer123
ReplyDeleteYou are right, throughout the whole discussion he said all the right things, brought up all the right points. Just enough to win over the jury and make the question the case just enough to have reasonable doubt. You also make a good point about the tone of his voice and pace, absolutely everything he did was perfect and spot on.
DeleteFruitloop123
i agree, his defense was the reasonable doubt the whole time and it worked in his advantage, and i agree with the tone of his voice and use of words is a great way to win the jury over, he reminds of a martin Luther king type speaker. i think he is very respectable.
Deletesnakebite123
Just something to point out that maybe not all of us realize, while Johnny Cochran gave a very persuasive closing argument, the prosecution is also very good at doing what they do. You may watch the prosecution and feel the defendant is guilty and then watch the defense and think he or she is not guilty. One advantage I think the defense has is that they get to give their closing argument after the prosecution. Because of this, their arguments are fresher in the minds of the jury.
DeleteISP123
One of the things i agree with most was when you said he never tried to say that OJ didnt commit this crime, he just created reasonable doubt. There was so much evidence against OJ and Cochran just tweaked the minds of the jurors to see his point of view. He turned all the evidence away from OJ and the jurors bought it. One of the best things he did was make the jurors feel good. He told them how much they mean to the case and he made them feel much more comfortable. That could be something that swayed the jury. Either way he was one of the best defense attorneys we have seen in a long time.USA123
DeleteI agree he did do an amazing job of creating scenarios for them to think reasonable doubt. OJ should of been found guilty but due to Mr. Johnnie Cochran he was pled not guilty. Cochran twisted the minds of those jurors making it seem like OJ really had nothing to do with it when everyone in their right mind knows this RICH man did. He was a magnificent attorney. Scorpio 123
DeleteThis was a my first watching this or even really hearing about it in great detail. I honestly think Johnnie Cochran did a more than excellent job on his "closing discussion". Even the way he said that instead of closing arguments was genius. Without Johnnie I truly think that OJ Simpson would have been in jail. Or at least he should of been. There is just no arguing against Johnnie. Just how he said things, what he said, how he said it. So smart and he did such a good job of giving reasonable doubt to the jury, which was exactly what he was going for. All he needed to do was try and convince them that maybe, just maybe OJ did not do it. I still think that OJ Simpson should have went to jail but Cochran won that battle for him and Cochran deserved to win that case.
ReplyDeleteFruitloop123
I thought that Johnnie Cochran was an awesome defense attorney first off. He's ways of capturing the jury attention was outside. I liked how he talked passionately and speaks on the key points in the California vs. OJ Simpson case. I also liked how Johnnie Cochran tells the jury that their just as important as anyone thats working this case, as far as the defense attorney(himself) and the prosecutor (Barry Shack). Johnnie Cochran basically stated the reasonable doubts in the California vs. OJ Simpson case and key points so that the jury may change their mind. In the video he also reminds the jury that if they had reasonable doubt that wouldn't be able to convict OJ Simpson. I agree with @Vhammer123 that Johnnie Cochran does not one time try to prove that OJ Simpson did not commit the crime, he simply tried to show that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did done the killing. Overall I think that Johnnie Cochran was great at his job. And in this particular case he did good at creating reasonable doubt. Great video!.
ReplyDeleteSecret'A'123
I agree with you. He did a great job of hitting all of the major issues in the prosecutions case in order to create a reasonable doubt. I think that his passion, tone of voice and the pace that he set while talking were also key in keeping the jury drawn in and focused. I know if I as sitting there for 6 hours a day listening to a couple people talk I would get really bored so I think that his passion had a lot to do with keeping the juries attention. All of these things together led to OJ being set free. vhammer123
DeleteEven when I was watching the video as Johnnie was stating the potential reasonable doubt in every piece of evidence, I was even starting to second guess myself! I'm glad that I wasn't a part of the jury, trying to rack my brain around all of the evidence and sifting through what was truly at the scene and what was planted by officials. BadWolf123
DeleteJohnnie Cochran did exactly what he was supposed to do in his closing argument. He brought up all the points that could create a reasonable doubt in the jurors minds. He pointed out all of the flaws in the prosecutions case such as how the glove and the hat were neatly placed when everything else was strung all over, also how one of the officers was racist and finally he connected OJ with the jurors in bringing up that if you live alone its very hard to establish an alibi. Johnnie Cochran didnt try to prove OJ was inocent he just focused on creating reasonable doubt which i believe allowed OJ to be set free. He also reminds them that if they do have a reasonable doubt that they can not convict OJ. Overall this video was a great demonstration on how reasonable doubt can be used as a defense stratigy
ReplyDeletedabster123
Yeah I agree that Johnnie Cochran was a very good defense attorney. Johnnie Cochran did a great job a representing OJ. Simpson and creating reasonable doubt in the juors mind. For a second Johnnie Cochran had me second guessing. I also agree with the others I liked how he pointed out the flaws in this case. Even though Johnnie Cochran did a good job at creating reasonable doubts and backing up his evidence, I still thinks he's guilty and should've did some time for committing the crime that's my opinion. This was my first time actually seeing Johnnie Cochran in the court room he did an amazing job. I enjoyed watching him do his job. Secret A123
Deletei think he did a great job on his closing thoughts, he hits every single point and argument dead on, i feel like its extremely hard to beat this guy in a court room he uses great words and knows his facts, if i was in need of a lawyer hed be the first person id call. he also uses words like discussions instead of arguments which shows his maturity. i think he did a great job mention all the reasonable doubt in the discussion and he had the jury double thinking their choice which is cool he hands down used it has his main strategy to win this argument.'
ReplyDeletesnakebite123
I think that Johnnie Cochran was a very good defense attorney, as he literally left no stone unturned. He used neutral words to display a laid back attitude so that it would take all the media pressure off of the jury. He also buttered up the jury by encouraging them to seek the truth through the evidence and how they were a huge part of the court process. It was crazy how he was able to create such reasonable doubt through every piece of evidence that was against OJ Simpson. If I was part of that jury, I would be second guessing myself as I was trying to determine the truth behind the crime scene. Johnnie even came up with a slogan that would stick in everyone’s minds,” If it doesn’t fit, acquit.” Even though in the end, his hard work ends in success, I think it was getting ridiculous when he was claiming several pieces of evidence as being planted by the police. BadWolf123
ReplyDeleteI agree. He used reasonable doubt to OJ's advantage. However, at some point I think lawyers should have to stop and think if they should help a possible murderer because I honestly think he was involved.
Deleterogir123
In this video the defense lawyer, Johnnie Cochran, picked the jury apart and practically formed them in his hands like putty. Mr. Cochran took every piece of the prosecutions argument and every word and dissected it, pointing out each little fault, and even character flaws in the officers that gave testimonies against O.J. Johnnie Cochran even created a reasonable doubt in the juries mind on plausible evidence. He also then spoke of how O.J. couldn't have done it because he has such a "wonderful" life and how he had too much to live for to just throw it all away on something that horrendous. Cochran took several minutes to greatly stress the importance of family and how good of a father that O.J. has been to his children. He also played the guilt card by saying that the childrens' mother had already been killed, that the jury shouldn't take away their father too. Cochran had given O.J.s alibi and argued that it could be totally true, and that the prosecution had no witnesses or believable evidence to show otherwise. He then used picture showing as he was explaining how reasonable doubt could be seen or at least questionable in every aspect of the prosecution. Cochran stressed and stressed what reasonable doubt is and how it must be used in the criminal justice system. Though it was irritating looking at the big picture, Cochran's strategy and the way he presented it was quite impressive. Para123
ReplyDeletei agree that by planting evidence in the juries mind, it gave them a feel that oj was innocent and there wasnt enough evidence to prove him guilty. he stated facts that his wife is already dead and by sending oj to jail without enough evidence is wrong because hes being takin away from his children, hes all they have. Hoopz123
DeleteI also agree with the point that Johnnie Cochran was planting the seed of doubt in the juries minds by picking out little things that the jury could find to be a little fishy to the point to cause them to doubt and vote in the favor of his client and not only that he used the children as leverage to pull the guilt trick by saying that the children had already lost one parent
DeleteTeAma123
in this video johnnie cochran formed the jury into separate parts, johnnies made it seem that oj simpson was innocent due to planting reasonable doubts in the juries mind, so the jury would think that there isnt enough evidence to charge oj simpson with the murder of his wife. he made it seem very persuading. Hoopz123
ReplyDeleteJohnny Cochran was the defense lawyer for OJ Simpson's murder trial. Because he was able to feed the jury little tweaks that put even a slight possibility of reasonable doubt into the jury's mind, he was able to get OJ off with no conviction. One point I found to be comical was the point of one investigator who was openly racist. Because of this, Cochran stated that he had planted evidence that they were using to convict him of the two murders. Cochran states that the hat and gloves were placed too neatly for it to have been OJ because in the case of a fight like what had happened, perfect and open placement of gloves were too obvious. The true killer would have at least tried to get rid of them. In my opinion, it is this and the point of no one seeing OJ that night that makes the prosecution's evidence a little less credible.
ReplyDeleterogir123
Johnnie Cochran was probably the best defense attorney we have seen in a very long time. I mean he got OJ off the hook for murder. That is not a very easy thing to do when the case seemed cut and dry that he was guilty. He made the jury feel a certain way in his closing discussion that made them change their minds. He kept a very neutral vocabulary throughout his discussion and made sure the jury saw things the way he wanted them to. Its almost like he made OJ out to be the victim. I like how he was saying the cop was a racist and planted evidence because though its most likely not true about planting evidence, however he was so savvy with his words that he made them actually believe that. He also had a picture of OJ's kid and was telling the jury not to take both of her parents away from her, like she was the victim. So what i took out of it was he kept deflecting evidence away from OJ and pointing it back at everyone else but the one on trial. All Cochran had to do was put reasonable doubt in the jurors mind to get OJ off, and he did it. USA123
ReplyDeleteIn this video, Johnnie Cochran is seen presenting his closing arguments to the jury. It is impressive with how many points of reasonable doubt that he conveys to the jury. Criminal trials are a very interesting thing to witness and I believe that nobody can truly understand the process of a criminal trial until they witness one. I was pretty young when the OJ trial happened, about ten or eleven years old, so at that time I didn’t truly comprehend what was going on but I was able to understand the main idea. The thing I remember the most was how long the trial lasted and how much publicity it got, it was aired live every day. A few years ago when I lived in Hawaii, there was a very notorious murder case that received a lot of attention, mainly only in Hawaii though. A white federal agent in Hawaii for a diplomatic security detail shot and killed a local man. The defense claimed that it was a justified shooting because of self-defense and the prosecution claimed the agent was under the influence of alcohol and that deadly force was not warranted. I mention this because it was this case that I followed beginning to end and was very educational to me. The very structured way the process worked is what impressed me the most. One thing I learned about closing arguments is that the jury cannot base their verdict off of opening statements or the closing arguments. They must only base their verdict off of the evidence that was introduced by the prosecution and the defense. The closing arguments are used by each side to summarize the evidence they introdudced during the case. Often the process of introducing evidence by the prosecution and defense can take weeks or even months so the attorneys use the closing arguments to refresh their memories and the defense uses that opportunity to squeeze some reasonable doubt in as well. If the case isn’t something that you feel associated with then it may be kind of hard to watch becuasee they can get quite boring but the next time a trial happens that hits close to home, I highly recommend watching it to learn about courtroom procedure. When it is a case you are personally interested in, it is much easier to follow.
ReplyDeleteISP123
The Trial of OJ Simpson was probably the most intense trial I have seen besides Michael Jackson when it comes to celebrities. For John Cochran to get both of these popular men off of pretty outrages cases, he must be doing something right. To show in this video he was discussing the closing argument and he was right on point about everything, very persuasive. Cochran continued to give some what legitimate reasons for why this case was all "reasonable doubt" . He gave reasons such as the racist officer Mark Firming placed all the evidence out and tried to frame OJ, there was suppose ably missing blood, using US against them like we were not from America, OJs limo driver Alan Park didn't seem to have a clue about anything. He continued to say OJ is not guilty because of reasonable doubt. He was one of the best attorneys I have seen, he was on point and dug deeper then anyone would think, coming up with scenarios and how everything played out. I can see why Cochran stated everything he did so the jury would see more to the story then what "they thought". He tried to make the jury feel bad about OJs daughter losing her mother and if he pled guilty they would be taking her father away as well, Cochran even brought up OJs parents as if they lost a daughter, it was their daughter in law what remorse would they have? I did get more of an idea on how the courtroom works. It was very interesting especially to see how OJ was found not guilty for murdering 2 innocent people. Scorpio 123.
ReplyDeleteIn his closing arguement Johnnie Cochran tries to win over the jury in his closing statement by being polite and wording his words carefully so as to butter up the jury while he instilled doubt in the minds of the jurors so as for them to sway his way to find his client not guilty he also points out that the term alibi states that if they have any doubt no matter how little that they must find him not guilty and then continues to go on telling his version of the senerio Not only that he also then tries to question the credibility of the detective and tries to imply that he could of planted evidence he also then uses his kids as leverage by pointing out that he came home because his little girl had a concert so as to make him look as to be a good dedicated father and how he would never go and kill his wife when he knew that his children would be the ones to find her and that he would never do that he basically tries to shame anyone who doesnt believe that hes a good and decent person not only that he tries to say how impossible it could of been for him to have done it without being recognized because how known of a person he is and how he also keeps fitting in those two words reasonable doubt into almost everything he said so as to sear it into the minds of the jury so that they would be more likely to vote in his way and he basically pretty much just tries to make the example senerio thats being used against his client to look completely absurd
ReplyDeleteTeAma123
I agree with you. His attorney definitely helped him win his case over. He used everything he can to win and I think that is shady when someone is clearly guilty. I guess money really does buy everything in this day and age. I just think if he didn't have his lawyer that he would have been toast. HRT 123
DeleteThe OJ Simpson trial was one of the most interesting and intense moments in time. It was long and it seemed as though time stood still. While I was not even born yet, I still hear one of the most famous statements that was said by OJ Simpson's attorney. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." I have heard many stories about this trial and many opinions. It makes me sad that from many things that were said, it seemed to be very racial slanted. I'm black, and while I was not born yet, I feel he was guilty. It makes me angry that while evidence seemed to indicate that he was guilty of killing to innocent people, it was his fame and money... and even his race that helped him be found innocent. In the meantime, his children have grown up with no parents and two families without their loved ones. His attorneys were just as dishonest as a used car salesman, but they did a great job at defending OJ.... HMMM.. I wonder if I did something like OJ even though I am also a black man, would the outcome be the same, Or would I get the death penalty? Nolove123
ReplyDeleteI think OJ Simpson trial showed the real world and what money can buy you. He bought himself the best lawyer out there and his lawyer got the job done. His lawyer made every single piece of evidence seem as if it has been compromised. The lawyer created a sense of doubt in everyone's mind. He even had me believing him for a few minutes. I was impressed by the way he laid down the facts. It was quite brilliant, but if the person is a murder I feel as if the lawyer is too for letting OJ get away with it. His attorney sold everyone their story and created unreasonable doubt in everyone's mind. For a lawyer I know who I would go after if I did something bad! They played every trick in the book including racism. I think that is something different for a trial. It was quite brilliant though. HRT123
ReplyDelete