I’ve read two recent news articles that are relevant to our
discussions in media law.
First, did you see the article about the behavior of the
jury in the murder trial of former police sergeant Drew Peterson? On Thursday, the
jury convicted him of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in
her bathtub in 2004. Prosecutors convinced jurors that the circumstantial evidence pointed
to her husband. (Also, Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson disappeared
in 2007, which led authorities to file murder changes in the case of Savio, which was first ruled an accidental death, but later changed to
homicide after Stacy Peterson’s disappearance).
But the behavior of the jury is what caught my eye.
Apparently, during the trial, the jury coordinated their clothing. They all
wore yellow one day, then all black, according to news reports. One day that
was particular noticeable was when the jury wore sports jerseys of area
professional teams.
Check out this article in which jurors explained that they
coordinated their clothing largely because they were bored. Click here for the article.
Second, the O.J. Simpson murder trial popped up in the news,
also. At a law school forum, the lead prosecutor, Christopher Darden, accused
the late Johnnie Cochran of tampering with the glove before Simpson famously
struggled to put it on during a courtroom demonstration.
Lots of good detail here about the criminal and civil trials
of O.J. Simpson. Click here for that article.
Incidentally, Darden was on a panel along with Fred Goldman
(father of Ron Goldman, who was found murdered with Nicole Brown Simpson) at
“Trials and Errors,” series, co-sponsored by Pace Law School and the Forum on
Law, Culture & Society at Fordham Law School (my alma mater).
After you read these articles, please return here and
comment. What did you think of the jury’s behavior in the Peterson murder
trial? In the article about Darden and the bloody glove, what did you find
interesting? Feel free to comment on one or both of the articles.
67 comments:
Maybe I should be offended that the jurors in the Peterson case "didn't take their job seriously enough," but honestly I find it understandable. People who are bored and have already exhausted one conversation topic are going to move on to another one.
I don't think the jurors for the Peterson case were mocking the law or anything. I think they were, like they said, bored. I could understand how people would think that they should respect the severity of the case, but they're not there to hear every single detail like those jurors. So what if the jurors decided to mix it up a bit? It's a novelty article, I don't understand how it's news but whatever.
I don't know how much evidence pointed to OJ in that case but every time I see footage of him trying on that glove it just seems silly. It reminds me of when I was a little kid and I'd wear my dad's size 12 shoes and walk around the house. I've never had an opinion about the OJ trial based on the media hype and glove footage. The lining manipulation seems like more goofy hype to me.
Eric P. T&TH 2:00
Marissa McMinn MW 3:30
I think what the jurors did with the coordinating clothes was a fun way for them to stay a little sane in a five week murder trial. I feel it gave them something else to focus on, instead of thinking about the gruesome details of the murder everyday. They could focus on what color they wore the next day, while still realizing how serious of a case it was.
In the case of the glove and O.J. Simpson, I believe that there is a chance that the glove was tampered with, but how can anyone ever really know? I think it's just easy to look back and say what could've been different and the glove not fitting is something I'm sure haunts the prosecution every once in a while.
What the jurors did may have been a bit disrespectful because it could be seen by some as not taking the case seriously. However, it's really not that big of a deal. It was just something to help take their minds off of the case that they were focusing a lot of their time and attention on.
In OJ Simpson's case, I don't believe the glove was tampered with. I feel like OJ just tried to act out a scene as if the glove didn't fit.
Melanie D. Media Law M/W 11-12:20
I don't think the jury did anything wrong by coordinating their clothes during the Peterson murder trial. If the judge didn't care, why should we? It's strange what the jury did, but there's nothing wrong with it. Maybe the jury members really were bored. As we talked about in class, criminal cases can take weeks or even months, and the jury is basically a team and, in this case, a color-coded team.
As for the glove in the O.J. Simpson trial, I'm not really sure if the defense team tampered with the glove, but I think it's possible that the blood-soaked glove shrank. Whether it's water or blood, liquid has the effect of making leather shrink or alter in shape.
Chrisdyann Uribe-
I don't see anything wrong with what the jury did with their clothing however for some reason it bothers me. I understand that they were forced to wait around for long period and time which lead to that discussion but in the court room it is sort of a distraction. Talk about what you please, but in the courtroom, everyone should be focused on the situation at hand not on the clothing of the jury. It created a commotion that wasn't needed. It definitely added more hype to an already "reality show."
As far as the glove being tampered with, I feel is completely impossible. I do still believe that the struggling act that he put on was over exaggerated. They shouldn't be worrying about the tampering of evidence but moreso the acting he did.
Kara B. Media Law T/TH 2:00
I don't believe that the jurors coordinating their clothing had anything to do with their intelligence or whether or not they were taking the case seriously. I can see how enduring days on end of a trial and sitting around in the juror's room could become mind-numbingly boring. I'm sure they weren't trying to convey some message through colors or sports jerseys. If they had been spelling words out or something I would be a little more concerned. But this is clearly an issue of boredom and nothing more.
I find it really strange that Darden is just now bringing something up 17 years after a trial. Like the article points out, it would have been illegal for him to withhold such information back then if he had thought that. He said something about it being a "whiny-snitch-approach to life," but how is accusing someone who is already dead of tampering with evidence any better? If it does nothing to change the verdict or punish anyone, it doesn't make sense. OJ already has a terrible reputation and he's serving a sentence in jail, so it doesn't affect him either. Sounds like this guy is just trying to get attention and stir up unnecessary conflict.
Sarah Keifer Media Law T/TH 2:00
I am kind of disappointed that there they only coordinated their clothes out of boredom. I feel like they got a lot of attention that should have been used on the case. I don't think it's disrespectful, I just feel that they should have had a reason to do it and then that would have made the situation more newsworthy than "oh we're just bored."
As for the OJ Simpson article, I feel like Darden is just looking for attention. The case has been over for 17 years. There's no point in bringing it up to a bunch of law students instead of the board. I feel like he's just trying to get his name out there again
I don't see that anything was wrong with them talking about what clothing there were going to wear and they even got permission from the judge to wear sports jerseys. That being said it doesn't make what they did fit into exactly what i would call in good taste. Wearing jerseys to a trial when a man killed his wife seems in very poor taste to me.
As for the glove, I remember the trail and how it looked when he tried it one. Wouldn't it have taken more than just ripping the lining for the glove not to fit?
Chris D. 11am
I find the new accusation of the O.J. Simpson trial confusing because of the timing of it. Why would Darden bring this up 17 years after the trial ended? Part of me believes that he wanted to make a splash at the panel discussion and it's not something he truly believes. I also believe that it would be nearly impossible to get a hold of a piece of evidence that significant.
Kayla Scroggs MW 3:30
I was reading the article about the jurors coordinating their shirts and I don't feel like they were trying to send a message or disrespect anything. I think they were bored, just like they said. It made me think of how in class Professor Martinez said that the whole trial process is a ritual, they do the same things every time. And, in the article someone said that this type of jury behavior was unheard of in the courtroom. I think that's why this is being considered big news right now, because this process dates so far back and they're the first people to try to shake it up a little bit.
I think it's perfectly fine for the jury to find some sort of entertainment during such a long trail; however, it does seem innappropriate for such an intense trial. People could have accused the judge of favoritism based on their sports shirts. Overall though, it was all in good humor.
As for OJ, the accusations of the glove being tampered with are irrelevant. The case is closed.
Along with everyone else, I was sad when it came out that their coordination was simply for fun and entertainment. If there were some purpose behind it there would have been more impact.
O.J. incidents are irrelevant at this point seeing that he's serving, what will likely be the rest of his life, in jail. The time-line doesn't make any sense either, with Cochran being deceased.
Tiffany Cinco
MW 3:30
Even though the jurors' coordinated shirts were distracting, I don't see any harm in it. The only thing that I can see wrong with the distracting shirts is that it may seem as if the jurors weren't taking their duty seriously. After all, if I were the one on trial and my freedom was on the line and I saw jurors matching their clothes each day like teenage high school girls, I would wonder what issues were actually discussed.
Robin R
MW 11 a.m.
I do not think there is any wrong with them coordinating their clothes. in a 5 week court case you have to do something to keep it together. It was even stated that they had to spend more time in the jury room than in the court room. I think if people have a problem with it they are reading to much into it.
As for O.J. I will always think he is guilty! Do I think it might be possible for the defense team to have tampered with the glove...yes! I wouldn't put it pass them. My question is where is the bailiff that made these comments. Find the source to the accusations. In cases like these you have to remember lady justice is blind!
Amber Kahla TTH 2pm
I am appalled at the jury sitting for the Peterson case. Really? You were that bored on a murder trial? Instead of discussing a person's fate as well as the homicide of Savio, they sit around and "pass the time" with a discussion of what they were going to wear the next day. I am all for an equal opportunity to be selected randomly for a jury but this is going way too far and these jurors aren't taking it seriously.
Erika Esquina
TR 2-3:20
For the first case involving the former police officer, I don't think that the jury did anything wrong by coordinating their clothes. Is it weird? Of course, but since they asked permission of the judge, they are in the clear. Their reason was that they were bored, I don't see how coordinating clothes made it more interesting though. They're still just sitting there no matter what they're wearing.
I think it's funny that the jury asked the judge before hand. Most people would think the courts are more strict and serious about something such as matching clothing. It just goes to show that judges and court employees can have fun at work just like everyone else.
This is a pretty ridiculous claim to make 17 years later. If the glove was tampered with the police and courts would have known.
Cheryl Brock
MW 3:30 - 4:50
So with the Drew Peterson case, I think it is totally fine for them to wear what they want.Especially if they asked if it was okay to wear it. Obviously people are going to take a murder trial seriously. But really, although they said they didn't have a motive for doing so, I think they sort of did - whether they knew that or not. They were "bored." They knew and all agreed that Drew Peterson was guilty with all the evidence they had to work with. Maybe I'm wrong though.
And as for OJ, I'm always going to believe he's guilty. And I think it is totally possible for the glove to be tampered with. But why hasn't this been brought up before? It's been 17 years! Maybe should have thought about bringing that up during the trial.
Sierra Moore
TH 2pm
I merely find the jury's clothing coordinating a bit odd. It's strange they came up with that idea, but seems harmless. I would like to know more than that they were "just bored." Like, why were they wearing jerseys one day? and did anything influence their color choices? that would make it a more interesting news story.
John Elmore MW 11:00
It strikes me not only as a bit reprehensible, but really odd that the jurors decided to coordinate their clothes. It smacks of disrespect for the victims as well as the fact they were responsible for judging a person's fate. Personally, I don't care at all what people wear anywhere. I'm not a big fan of formal attire or anything. If they'd individually decided to wear jerseys or even a clown suit, for that matter, it wouldn't bug me. But the fact that they decided to don matching outfits just seems like attention seeking behavior in a situation where you are not the star, nor should you strive to be. Out of boredom, you decide to play dress up? I'm not sure how this relieves ennui.
I think it is a bit ridiculous for a jury to coordinate their outfits out of sheer boredom. I might could look past it if it was a nominal case, but it was a murder trial! A police sergeant was accused of killing his wife and I think it is not only disrespectful to the victim's family but also to our judicial system to make such a distracting statement out of boredom.
Jordan Dusek TTH 2:00 said....
I feel like the jury spent more time coordinating their clothing as opposed to spending more time focusing on the case. It seems like they already had their minds made up and decided to pass the time by picking out color schemes for each day.
John Zanjani - T/TH 2:00 PM Media Law
I think that the jury in the Peterson trial has two separate but valid ways of having their conduct interpreted. One, being "bored" during a murder trial that is nationally publicized, with lives on the line and lives lost previously, there should have been more self-control and further thought into what they were doing. At the same time, maybe they were subconsciously expressing how much of a circus the whole thing became - something like the Simpson case.
As for the possible tampering of evidence by the late Cochran, it's something that ultimately serves nothing. The key players are now gone - Simpson is in prison for likely the rest of his life, Cochran is dead, and as Dershowitz said, "he's trying to blame it on the dead man."
If these cases were true, why is it becoming such "shocking" news now. The case will have "new information" and continue to have an air of uncertainty for years to come
Morgan Rutledge
11 AM MW Media Law
I don't necessary believe the jury was trying to send a message through their clothing choices, but I do find it a little sketchy. If I was a juror for a murder trial, I don't think I would agree to matching clothes.. it does make them seem like they're making a mockery of the case and that they're not taking it seriously. I might be reading too much into it, but I find it strange that they used such dark colors. (Black, green, yellow, blue.) Colors that are in bruises... kind of creepy and strange!
Morgan Rutledge
11 AM MW Media Law
About the OJ Simpson case, I think it's a little odd that it took Darden nearly 17 years to bring up that the defense had the glove during the lunch recess? Yeah right. There is no way that if that was true, it wouldn't have been brought up before now. I believe that OJ Simpson was guilty, but Darden making claims like this so long after, makes him look completely non credible. About the bloody glove though, everyone knows when leather gets wet (with water, or say blood..) it shrinks. That's why the glove didn't fit.
Caren Abousaab ---
I read the one about the jury and there matching clothing. I don't see why it's causing such a stir. It's not like what they were wearing was affecting the way they were judging the case. They even said that they asked permission to wear the jury. Court is so long and they even said they were bored most of the time. If they found a way to keep themselves a little entertained then good for them. In fact it probably helped them because it brought them together a little bit more as a jury so they were able to come up with decisions better also if they practiced their arguing skills when it came to deciding about a color of clothing then when it came to argue about the case they'd be all the more prepared.
Kelli E. (11 a.m. MW)
I feel that the color coordinating and jerseys during the Peterson trial was a little immature. They say they are bored, but that makes me think they were not taking it serious. There was things to talk about and discuss besides what color to wear the next day. It also could have been disrespectful, here someone is trying to be proven innocent and this people come out matching, it would make angry. To me it just makes me believe that they did not care and not concerned with the case.
Scot W. MW 3:30
When I first read the headline I was appalled by what the jurors had done in a murder trial, but as you read on, you can see that they did get permission from the judge. Also, my dad flies helicopters for an EMS company, and he's said the nurses have sick senses of humor, but you have to in order to stay sane. These jurors saw some pretty grisly things.
Quick note about the OJ trial, I'm reminded of a Seinfeld episode that mocked the trial. Kramer's lawyer Jackie Chiles (who's character was based on Cochran) said "You can't let the defendant have control of the key piece of evidence!"
Jade Lopez
T TH 2 p.m.
I think that what the jurors did in the Peterson case was very inappropriate. Unless you are a 13 year old girl, coordinating your outfit with eleven other adults for the next day is ridiculous. Yes, I understand that they were bored and there is nothing wrong with that, but there were other things for them to discuss and do other than what to wear. In my opinion they were just trying to be "cute" and must not have discussed the possibility of offending the family of the victim involved in the case during their boredom.
O.J. Article-
I do not believe Darden, but if his accusations did somehow turn out to be true 17 years of silence and a "whiny-little-snitch approach to life" has shot any sort of credibility he had. Cochran is dead, O.J. is in prison, let it gooo.
Personally, I believe the actions of the jurors in the Peterson case are quite strange, as I'm sure most people think. I think them all getting together and deciding to match clothing is an odd topic of conversation, given that they are jurors in a murder trial. But strange or not, if they wanted to match clothing, there is no harm to that and it was also approved by the Judge.
For the article about Darden and his accusations about the glove, I believe that even if it is true, it is irrelevant information because the case is closed. Also Darden bringing it up 17 years later makes him look a little desperate and non credible. Although the information is interesting and will I'm sure make lots of people's minds wander, there is no point to the thought.
Rebecca Pence, M/W 11-12:20
Marcelo Mayen, MW 2:00
Jury:
It's bad taste to goof around during something as serious as a murder trial. I mean they must have been really, really bored. I can't believe the judge didn't get pissed off about it. I do like the dark humor of the situation, though.
In the Peterson case although I don't think they were being unprofessional or that they didn't take their job seriously. The only thing that I sort of had a problem with is the statement that said
“We had long discussions on colors to wear each day. It took time to work out.”
It seems strange that a panel of jurors would waste time deciding on what color to wear, regardless if it was outside the time they spent reviewing the case. And then to say it didn't have a message, it was just out of boredom is kind of belittling the whole case because it apparently was just a waste of time.
In the OJ Simpson article, I find all kinds of things not so much interesting as annoying.
The back-and-forth accusations from the defense and prosecution - 17 years after the court ruled in the case - just seems childish to me. As we've discussed in class, "double jeopardy" prevents this case from ever being re-tried, so why all the bickering?
Darden saying that filing a greivance would've been a "whiny-little-snitch approach to life" is kind of contradictory to the way he acted in the panel in which he brought up the glove issue now.
Kathryn C. - 11 am MW
I can understand where people can see the color coordination being a lack of respect or an act of not taking the trial seriously, but who really knows what was going on in the jury room. Maybe they needed something to get their minds off the upsetting subject matter.
As for the O.J. case, I don't believe that Cochran tampered with the evidence. I believe O.J. was putting on a show.
Tara V. MW 11 a.m.
I think that the jury in the Peterson case was disrespectful. I think that this represents a marked change in the way that our nations view the seriousness of murder cases. I understand that the jury did not have bad intentions, but let's get real that behavior is unacceptable.
As far as the O.J. Simpson case is concerned, we all know he did it. As far as the glove is concerned who really know if the the defense had it or not. Good luck proving they did.
Jessica Montez T/TH 2 p.m.
I think the coordination of clothing by the jury of the Drew Peterson trial did show lack of seriousness. There is a time and a place for everything and this should not have been involved in a murder trial. I believe that maybe preconceived media attention maybe led the jury to just assume he was guilty. This sounds like a fashion statement rather than a jury statement of boredom. I believe the ex-prosecutor claim is a lie because why would a man with a huge fact that could change a famous case/trial wait so long. He stated he didn't want to be a "whiny-little-snitch," however by waiting so long to reveal this evidence it makes him even look more suspicious and including the fact that Cochran and Kardashian have died no one can really go against his claim, so why bring it up now?
Lauren Martin MW 11:00 a.m.
The behavior of the jury in the murder trail of former police sergeant Drew Peterson is very disrespectful and shows a lack of seriousness with no doubt. On a case such as this, the seriousness of the matter is substantial. The fact that the jury claimed to be "bored," therefore had long discussions about coordinating their clothes shows a complete lack of respect in my opinion. In different circumstances, maybe something of this matter wouldn't appear to be as big of a deal but for the sake of Savio's family, I think the jury has a right to show a little respect and seriousness.
Amy Cope
TH 2:00
For the case of the jury coordinating their outfits, I don't think it has anything to do with the trial itself and any message trying to get across. I'm sure it was just boredom, but I do think that it was a little rude of them to admit that.
As for the OJ case, I think we all know the OJ is guilty. I can't necessarily decide whether I believe the glove was tampered with or not, but I do believe that OJ might have been trying to throw thing off with the glove "not fitting"
I don't think the jurors of the Peterson trial were necessarily doing anything wrong, but I do think they could have taken their duties a bit more seriously. I can only imagine how boring some trials can be, but at the same time, it was a murder trial, a trial that would decide whether or not a man was guilty or not guilty of murder. I would think Americans could show a bit more respect towards the judicial system as well as the families of those involved.
Ashley M T/TH 11 a.m.
Pam Renteria
M/W, 3:30 p.m
I found it really interesting to read the Peterson trial to find out why the jury decided to color coordinate!
I personally think the stunt is a bit unprofessional, especially during a murder trial.
Although, upon reading the statements from the jurors it seems to ease a bit of tension once we all found out that they were given permission from the judge.
I feel like the jury's actions is getting more attention than the actual case, which is really interesting to see!
Haley Jenkins
MW 330
I understand the jury's perspective that it was a harmless joke and a way to pass time. Honestly if i was on the jury i probably would have been so bored it would of seemed like a harmless idea to me as well. However, in a trial especially a murder trial i think it is of the utmost importance to uphold an image of seriousness. No matter how bored one is. What the jurors needed to take into consideration is the fact that in this trial a deceased person's grieving family was involved and you have to take into consideration if they would take a harmless joke lightly in this time. It also greatly surprised me that not only did the judge ok it but also he laughed along with them. it does strike me as slightly unprofessional in a murder trial.
Hoang-Chau Nguyen
T-Th @2pm
I think the Jurors were just simply bored and weren't really mocking anybody.
I don't think evidence really shows OJ in that case but when the footage of him trying on the glove it makes him look bad.
Hady M
OJ Case:
I think my feelings are summed up from this comment in the article,
"Having made the greatest legal blunder of the 20th century," Dershowitz said of Darden, "he's trying to blame it on the dead man."
It's too late Darden. Just let karma do its thing with Simpson.
I don't necessarily see a problem with the jurors coordinating their clothing. Other than it appearing that they might not be taking their duty seriously, I don't see much harm in their actions.
Zach M. TTh 2pm
In response to the Reuters article about the glove, I am skeptical about Darden's allegations. Of course he said that the evidence was tampered with by the defense because they had prior access to glove. The article included a point that the defense did not have prior access to the evidence. If that is true, then it makes Darden's claim unsupported by factual evidence. From what I could discern from the article, there didn't seem to be much evidence (if any at all) that Darden's claim had any validity.
I would love to see more jurors do what this jury did. It's a way to take some of the edge off. I haven't been called to jury duty yet, but, as I have heard, it can be extremely boring and dull. Perhaps with higher profile cases it's not the best idea to play around, but that's up to the jurors.
Casey T. T/TH 2p.m.
Colby Bohannan
T-Th 2pm
It seems like we should find out who this bailiff is that knows something about where the glove was during the lunch hour in question.
If there is something legitimate about his or her story, why wasn't anything brought up sooner? Like in 1995?
Aisling Niestroy
M/W 11:00 am
Honestly, if I was on the jury for a gruesome murder case that lasted this long, I would want something to lighten the atmosphere of my days, too. On one hand, they are being kind of disrespectful to the reverence of a court room but they were basically 'volunteered' to be part of this jury. It can really be a downer to sit in on a case like this day in and day out. I think it's kind of nice that they are unified, whether good or bad for the defendant, and able to put a positive spin on a bad situation. I don't think they should be chastised or anything of that nature for doing something like this. Personally, I also think it's kind of funny.
I thought that the jury coordinating colors was a good way for them to blow off steam and create a sense of solidarity, and also kind of funny that it's such a big deal and made headlines when its just what theyre wearing, not necessarily their opinions that were shocking.
In the OJ Simpson case I think that it's just somehting thats needs to be put to rest. I dont think that they would have had access to the glove at that time.
About the "jury behaving badly," I can see how it can both be a distraction and just a playful thing for the jurors to participate in. If the way the jurors dressed as far as coordinating colors is such a problem, then rules should be established by the courts for what the jurors can and can not wear. I honestly see no problem with them coordinating colors with what they are wearing. Granted, I can see how some may think that the themed days would distract them from their duty as jurors, however I think if it gives them a more happier, positive attitude, then there take on the case at hand would probably be more thoroughly and accurately reviewed by the jury.
Marissa L.
T/TR 2:00
I don't think the jurors' actions were offensive, but I can see how they could be interpreted as disrespectful. No one wants to be stuck on a jury sifting through the same information over and over again so it's understandable that they came up with a way to make the task a little more enjoyable. A courtroom, however, might not be the most appropriate arena for playing around. I don't think it could have had any kind of serious impact on the case itself, but it might be misconstrued as indifference. As for the glove ordeal, the whole thing seemed like folly and nonsense.
Well, I find it really interesting that the ex-prosecutor is making this claim about the glove. I feel like there was a lot of shady things going on involving that whole trial so it really doesn't surprise me that someone closely related to the case has come out discrediting Simpson and his attorney.
In the OJ Simpson trial, I think the glove was tampered with a little bit. I just don't understand how he wasn't found guilty if both of those gloves were found at the murder scene. He didn't seem too upset about his wife's death in the first place, which is a little odd. It seems to me that the verdict to this case was already set in stone even before it took trial. It just reminds me of the Casey Anthony trial, and shows that our justice system is a little messed up because some people can't put two and two together with common sense, but who knows, nobody will ever know about the O.J. Simpson case, nobody will ever know if the glove was tampered with.
Justin Witherspoon
Media Law T-TH 2:00
I believe the jurors were a bit disrespectful and unprofessional for a court room trial, but it was their way of being slightly entertained for a long murder case.
I find that the questioning of the lining of the glove was not brought up in the original trail. Even the bailiff said he was a little convinced that it was tampered with, but did not say anything. I just can't believe why he was not found guilty with a glove at the murder scene and one at his estate. I'm just plumtickled.
Marissa T
MW 11am
I don't really see a problem with the jurors coordinating their clothing. It doesn't harm anything or the outcome of the verdict, just appears that they aren't taking their job as serious as they should be.
In regards to the Peterson case I do not see the jurors actions as a cause for legal concern. Although very disrespectful I don't think it effected the result of the case.
I think that the accusations that the defense tampered with evidence in the O.J. trial is in bad taste. The quote "Dershowitz said of Darden, 'he's trying to blame it on the dead man," pretty much sums the entire article up.
-Rudy Villalobos m-w 11:00
Dexter B MW 11:00 AM
In the O.J. Simpson case Darden brings up what I believe to be a weak argument. I don't think the glove was tampered with It just dealt with O.J. trying to act like he was struggling.Since Darden has some relationship with the victims his opinion is biased and trying to "blame it on the dead man" wont get him very far.
Daniel D.
3:30 MW
I think that although it's unusual, it's not inherently a bad thing for jurors to coordinate their clothing. It simply shows that they're getting along and making the most of something they probably mutually tried to avoid doing. Either way, I liked that the judge was clearly a Sox fan, and even cheerfully noted an absence of Cubs attire.
Ashley W T-TH 11-12:20
I think that it was slightly disrespectful for the jurors to coordinate clothing in such a way. Bored or not they knew the responsibility they had and it seems like they're not taking it as seriously as they should. Also, it kind of seems like they slapped the court room in the face. If I were a member of the court or involved with the trial I'd be outraged. It just seems like they'd be more concerned with what color shirt they'd be wearing the next day rather than the court case and it's outcome.
I believe in the jurors still kept a sense of seriousness and understanding of a murder case without distraction that it is best. I feel maybe that dressing a certain way in the court room is a distraction. To even be someone convicted of something and just going to a trial docket you have to be presentable and no affection with family members. I don't think it really is the time and place and unfortunately they will have to wait out.
In the O.J. Simpson case I feel there is a big possibility the glove was tampered with especially if the jury can only see the evidence on certain circumstances. Is there enough evidence to prove it? Sad to say but it might be too late to push that. Seems we will never know.
Vanessa Ramos
T/TH 2-3:20pm
Brandi Sebek
M/W 11:00
In regards to the Peterson case I don't think that any legal action really can be taken against them. They seemed to be making light of a serious situation that was very publicized in the news for quite some time. I think it is very disrespectful that they seemed to care more about their clothes, like school children would, than the situation at hand. This is a case that not only was in the news but Peterson appeared on news programs after the "disappearance" of his fourth wife trying to charm the nation. Even a movie was made about the death of his third wife while married to his fourth, before she disappeared. Not really a case I would try and make light of.
Austin Ainsworth
M/W 11:30-12:20
Although I do not found it "wrong" what the jury did. It is not offensive or negative to coordinate their clothes. I do find it very disheartening to think about living in a country where a jury is so bored in a case that they plan their outfits. These are the people that determine the lives of individuals around the country. It should be an honor to be a jury member, instead it a a negative thing that people are forced into and that everyone hates. That is why they call it jury "duty." I do not know what needs to change for people to start taking it more serious but it is sad to think about court rooms being stricken with boredom.
Amber S.
MW 3:30-4:50
I find what the jurors did in the Peterson’s trial not to be that awful, but I do see how some would think they aren’t taking the case seriously. I feel like being a juror is your job, at least for the time being. At your job, at least most, you have a dress code and jerseys are not included. The dress codes in a court, at least the ones I have been in, require at least business casual attire, so jerseys might not meet the standards. I mean these individuals are deciding the fate of someone’s life. Out of respect for the American justice system, dress like you would for an interview and know that you are doing your civic duty.
When it comes to the OJ trial all I have to say is, “Well played defense team, well played.” I will always believe that OJ did it. I mean come on they found matching blood-soaked gloves at two opposite locations. The defense had easy access to the glove. Has anyone ever reinvestigated that piece of evidence just to see?
Caitlin Clark
M/W 3:30-4:50
I'm kind of surprised by the number of people commenting that they don't think there's anything wrong with what the jury did. Though I don't think they had ill intentions, I just think it's disrespectful for the jurors to say that they were so bored with the trial that they needed to color coordinate their outfits. I just feel that it delegitimizes the case. God forbid they have to pay attention and be adults during a murder trial.
The O.J. article is interesting. That black glove (Isotoner, right?) has become such an iconic part of the case that it would be interesting if it had been tampered with. However, if someone were to tear the lining, wouldn't that make it easier, not harder, for him to get the glove on?
Will Oliason
M 2-5
I think it was a little unprofessional of the jury to match colors in such a serious case, but I think that given the same opportunity I would do that too.
Post a Comment