[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted.

[/ QUOTE ]

So those same "respectable" lawyers would have let him get convicted if it was only a second degree charge?

If there was a strong enough case available to convict him, given his capable defense, then the problem was the prosecution acted like morons.

D.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify a bit:

Most criminal defense lawyers believe in the theoretical idea that a defendent that is guilty should still be given the best possible defense because of the overriding concern that people should not be convicted if the government can not prove their case.

I have always had a little bit of a problem with this concept because it leads to the conclusion that if a defendent tells his attorney he did it, the attorney will recomend to his client that he still plead innocent if he thinks the case is winnable.

The implication is that if you commit a crime and are arrested, it is somehow the patriotic thing to do to plead innocent if you expect the government can't prove it. Or it is at least patriotic and ethical for the defense attorney to do that.

I say the foregoing because I want to make clear that both I and many defense attorneys I know, are not big fans of acquitting guilty defendents just because the system forces it. It is an unfortunate consequence of our zeal to protect the innocent. And I know there are defense attorneys who will not take cases they think they can win because it bothers them if they know they are helping acquit an obviously guilty bad guy.

I am speculating that at least a few of OJ's lawyers were in that category. I don't think they would have signed on to help acquit a man they were sure committed true first degree murder (if there is such a thing as "blink of an eye" premeditation, I expect the public would believe it is an unfair category.) So they must have believed that he deserved to be acquitted, not just that he could beat the case.

While setting a guilty man totally free based on legal machinations seems wrong, it is surely better to set a guilty man free, even using legal ploys, than to have him convicted of a significantly greater offense than that which he was guilty of. I'm guessing that it was the prevention of this type of miscarriage of justice which allowed the attorneys to feel they were doing the right thing. Another reason, I agree, might have been that they thought the police planted evidence. But I don't think that was the main one.

PS The National Enquirer, whose stories are often exaggerated, but are more often than not basically true, had a story where they went into pretty great detail about plea bargain negotiations where OJ admitting snapping while engaged in stalking Nicole and coming upon Ron Goldman. His new book may offer the same scenario. I didn't read it. But it is certainly by far the most plausible explanation. Anyone who thinks he left his houuse with plans to murder doesn't know human nature. He never expected to encounter Goldman. He was going to kill Nicole only? Please. Anyway the Enquirer said he was willing to plead guilty to I believe, first degree manslaughter. The prosecutors wanted second degree murder. When he turned it down they did the common prosecutor's technique of trying for the higher charge.

If the above story is true it pretty much corroborates my theory.