[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He was supposed to be acquitted. And all those respectable lawyers (at least some of them were respectable) had few qualms about getting him acquitted. Because it was wrong to charge him with first degree murder. He committed second degree murder. (At the very end, the jury was instructed that they could in fact find him guilty of second degree, but I believe that even an unbiased jury would have trouble doing that when the prosecution case did not really admit that second degree murder was a reasonable alternative.)

Any other opinion is moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you the premise that OJ committed 2nd degree murder, since I don't have the offhand legal expertise to judge the difference between 1st and 2nd degree. Allow me to spell this out:

* OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ committed 2nd degree murder.

* The prosecution charged him with 1st degree murder, but it is perfectly within the court's legal power to nevertheless convict him of 2nd degree murder, and the jury knew this.

* Conclusion: OJ should have been convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Any other conclusion (given these premises) is moronic. Mr. Sklansky, you are not making the slightest bit of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably should have been convicted of second degree murder. But there was a fight about whether to allow that option which the prosecutors won. Had they lost, my claim that he should have been acquited is clearly correct.

On the other hand I believe that you could make a case that even a fair jury would have been reluctant to convict a man of a crime that is much different than the one the prsecution was shooting for.

Meanwhile I worry about those posters who think it was probable that OJ planned the murders.