Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
Numerous interesting things about that verdict. One is that the prosecution made in error in jury selection by having so many black women, as they were the demographic least empathetic towards him abusing a white woman.
The concept of DNA was so novel to the uninitiated that I'm sure it seemed like pseudoscience to them. Bill Simmons of all people wrote an excellent recap of the OJ verdict wherein he talked at great length about the prosecution's ineptitude, especially WRT to properly explaining DNA to the jury.
|
Exactly. I've not been around enough juries to speak authoritatively to them, but I've been around enough to see that glazed over look they get in their eyes. Jurors get bored easily. And frankly, jurors are - as often as not - just not very intelligent people.
I've never been terribly impressed by the jury as a true indicator of guilt or innocence. I'd honestly rather see a panel of 9 trained, educated attorneys establish my guilt or innocence in any of these things. But hell, what do you do?
The prosecutors didn't do a good job of 'dumbing down' DNA evidence, but it takes a degree of understanding and sophistication as it relates to the field in order to do a decent job of distilling it into something that a jury can easily digest. The LA prosecutors office simply didn't have that understanding and to be fair, very few people in the world did. I find it difficult to really barbecue them for that.