United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL
Source:
From The Trenches
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... rors-rights-now-illegal/200165
Published: Jun 2, 2017
Author: Justin Gardner
Post Date: 2017-06-03 10:38:54 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 118954
Comments: 422
Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights. Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry. Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.” The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.” Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules. Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool. “I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO TRASH MY JURY TRIAL, BASICALLY,” TESTIFIED JUDGE [PETER] JAKLEVIC. “IT JUST DIDN’T SOUND RIGHT.” JACKLEVIC ENDED UP SENDING THAT JURY POOL HOME ON NOV. 24, 2015 WHEN YODER TOOK A PLEA. JAKLEVIC CONTINUED TO TESTIFY THAT HE STEPPED INTO THE HALLWAY WITH MECOSTA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BRIAN THIEDE WHEN DET. ERLANDSON AND A DEPUTY BROUGHT WOOD INTO THE COURTHOUSE THAT DAY. MECOSTA COUNTY DEPUTY JEFF ROBERTS TESTIFIED HE “ASKED WOOD TO COME INSIDE BECAUSE THE JUDGE WANTED TO TALK WITH HIM,” THEN THREATENED TO CALL A CITY COP IF WOOD DID NOT COME INSIDE. WOOD TESTIFIED JUDGE JAKLEVIC NEVER SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, OR HIM ANY QUESTIONS, BEFORE ORDERING HIS ARREST. HE TELLS FOX 17 HE HAD CONCERNS HIS CASE WAS TRIED IN MECOSTA COUNTY WHERE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED, INVOLVING SEVERAL COURT OFFICIALS INCLUDING THE JUDGE.” To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place. “So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.” Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury. “And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.” When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.” We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 264.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
Deckard, I've just about had it with your "jury nullification" bullshit. You wanna play that game? Fine. Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other. Now, how about if you're on trial and I hand out fliers in front of your courtroom informing potential jurors they have the power to convict you even if you didn't violate the letter of the law? You woudn't consider that jury tampering?
Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. But think what this would mean. Juries will play it safe and convict knowing that if they are wrong the judge -- who is the expert, after all -- will acquit and correct their "error". The reverse, as you pointed out, isn't true.
You're correct. If the judge so chooses. But he may hate the defendant more than the jury. It still doesn't change the fact that the jury can convict despite what the law says. People have literally been hanged contrary to law. Ultimately, written laws have only as much power as those in control allow, and that cannot be helped. But jury "nullification" really refers to nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating, not convicting someone who stands falsely accused. And given the civil theory is that it's better for a guilty man to be go free than an innocent man to go to jail. Nullification stands as a final voice of the average people on whether criminal laws passed by representatives are acceptable, and that is simply not a bad thing in my view. Fugitive slave laws falling "victim" to jury nullification being one example. I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them. While it may result in people truly deserving of punishment going free on occasion, #1) I think that would be extremely rare, and #2) I think the value of giving average people a voice on what laws are acceptable is far more valuable a thing than is the harm in letting a true thug go free, so I thikn the benefit greatly outweighs the (very rare) harm.
I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them: A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Otherwise, they can forget about the jury altogether and have a bench trial.
A) If they think the law is unfair they can vote not guilty. B) If they think the defendant did not violate the letter of the law but did violate the spirit of the law, they can vote guilty. Or they can vote guilty if they simply don't like him. Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms.
This would actually be beneficial in cases that are lost because of a technicality. The jury could be instructed that they can examine the technical infraction and make a determination as to how much weight to give it. Every time the defense yells "objection", the jury does not have to disregard what led up to the objection. The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify. This could change everything.
You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster. But I'm still not going to do that. People already do that.
My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction. As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law. Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.
Fair? Fair to whom? Is the idea that every person accused of a crime enter a courtroom with as close as possible to a 50/50 chance of being convicted, and if the odds are only 20%, then some rule changes should be done to make it closer to 50%, because then the trial will be more "fair"? The entire premise of the US criminal justice system is supposed to be based on the idea that defendants get the benefit of a doubt at every step. Prosecutors have to see enough merit to press charges, grand juries have to affirm there's a criminal case, judges have to agree, defendants are given attorneys if they can't afford one, juries have to be convinced of guilt "beyond reasonable doubt", and even after all that, appellate judges can be called in to give an opinion on whether everything was done right. Jury nullification would/could/should be just one more test of guilt added to many others that already exist. It's not about being fair or not fair. Nullification serves as a test of the law itself, that it is something that an average cross section of people agree with. And it's not as though a single jury engaging in nullification would cause a law to be repealed throughout an entire land. It would only affect the outcome of a single trial. Only if many juries began to nullify one particular law repeatedly would the law be effectively gutted, and if that were to happen, then it probably means it's a bad law that should be gutted, one example being the Fugitive Slave Act which I understand was frequently nullified on sound moral grounds. And if that's the case, why shouldn't such an unpopular law be gutted? I don't understand why a judge would even care if a jury engaged in nullification. It's no money out of his pocket. Why would he not simply accept it as one more thing, added to many others, that could happen? If only a single juror nullifies while all others affirm guilt then the defendant can be retried, and probably would be in most cases. Nullification is not writing laws. It's only limiting application of a law or laws against a single defendant or set of defendants. Once the case is over, the nullification has no further legal effect.
You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did. As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?
As nolu chan pointed out, "... juries will acquit defendants who appear sympathetic, who are charged with violating an unpopular law, who the jurors speculate would otherwise be sentenced too severely, or who haven’t been proven guilty under standards for proof the jurors believe are required despite the judge’s instruction otherwise." Jurors will do what jurors do, including when they feel a defendant is guilty according to the letter of the law, but that a verdict of guilty would result in an injustice that they are unable to reconcile with their personal conscience. The judicial result is that shit happens. OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime. Much prosecution evidence, and many witnesses, were destroyed on the stand. What happened in the courtroom, and what was reported on the evening news and talk shows, frequently differed greatly.
And all along I thought it was because nine African-American jurors in an LA courtroom refused to convict a famous and and admired black man. I believed Marcia Clark when she said she convicted murderers with a fraction of the evidence in this case. The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.
Curiously, I never get this from people who actually watched the court testimony. The prosecution was a mess. The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. They were so unprepared to go to trial, they diddled about a a few months before presenting evidence that somebody had died. They screwed up the handling of the blood evidence. For the most part, the state case was dead after Barry Scheck got done destroying the LAPD witnesses. The jury took four hours to reach a unanimous verdict of acquittal.
101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE: http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html
http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html Reason #1 is typical. Accepted as true, it does not prove much of anything. Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on.
Well, when you post "101 Reasons" you know there are going to be some lame ones. But I would say OJ's blood at the crime scene, victim's blood in the Bronco, the gloves with victim's blood, OJ's shoe print at the murder scene, the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves, hair and fibers matching. Now, you can argue that each one individually proves nothing. But taken together, there's only one explanation.
[misterwhite #120] the fact that OJ can't produce the shoes or gloves Both videos show that the gloves did not fit O.J. Simpson, showing the disastrous glove demonstration from the trial. The second video further brings up an interesting possibility. There was evidence that Nicole Simpson bought two pairs of Aris Isotoner Light XL gloves at Bloomingdales in NYC. There was no evidence showing that they were given to O.J. This video interestingly offers an argument that the gloves belonged to Ron Goldman. They were certainly not needed to keep hands warm, they were light and could function well as driving gloves. Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari. - - - - - - - - - - O.J. and the Gloves : The Truth About What Really Happened - - - - - - - - - - An interesting theory. The bloody gloves were a gift from Nicole to Ron Goldman. IS O.J. INNOCENT? THE MISSING EVIDENCE The argument is that the gloves did not fit O.J. because they were not his gloves, they were Ron Goldman's. Compares Goldman's defensive hand wounds on his hands and the knife punctures on the gloves. "Please remember, if the gloves were worn by the killer they wouldn't have had any defensive wounds on them. The killer wasn't blocking any knives." It is an interesting theory, significantly more interesting than the theory that if people only say enough times that the gloves really did fit, everyone can just ignore the video that shows they did not fit.
Not that night. Ron Goldman drove his girlfriend's car. But say he did drive Nicole's Ferrari. He wasn't killed in the car. So why would he still be wearing those gloves when he walked up to her condo? Did Ron Goldman wear extra-large gloves? By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman. There was a picture of OJ wearing gloves. Lo and behold, they were the same model as gloves found at the murder scene and behind his house, glove expert Richard Rubin testified. Lastly, if those were Ron Goldman's gloves, how did one of them end up behind OJ's house covered in OJ's blood and the blood of both victims?
[11519] - - - - - - - - - - MR. DARDEN: Miss Vemich, what was it about those gloves that made them sell? The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter. It looks like she was Christmas shopping in New York. What difference does it make when Nicole bought two sets of those gloves? O.J. could not wear them, they did not fit. Someone who drives a Ferrari can ignore the bother of returning something to Bloomingdale's in Manhattan. Moreover, it was never established that the gloves in evidence were purchased in the known transaction from December 1990. The receipt for the gloves bought in December 1990 show style 70268 (not 70263), no size, no color, Ms. Vemich testified she did not know if style 70268 had ever been sold in the United States, and, when asked directly, "Is there [any] way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A?," Ms. Vemich answered, "No." MR. DARDEN: And to the right of the "2" we see the number "$77.00"? [...] [11529] MR. DARDEN: How many different types of Aris gloves did you sell at $55.00 during December? [11530] MS. VEMICH: No, they did not. [11531] MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A? MS. VEMICH: No.
They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are: Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves?
They were cashmere-lined, fine for cool weather. Oh, here they are: https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png Did Nicole give them to OJ with the intent that he wear them in Chicago or New York in winter? No? Then why bring it up? You got a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves? misterwhite posted on 2017-06-13 9:21:49 ET I do not have a picture of Ron Goldman wearing those gloves. You do not have a picture of O. J. Simpson verified as wearing those gloves. There is no evidence that either of the two evidence gloves have been verified as purchased by Nicole Simpson, or given to O.J. Simpson. There is no picture of O.J. Simpson wearing gloves that obviously did not fit, except for Darden's demonstration disaster of the century. You present a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing a pair of BLACK gloves, as O.J. wearing those gloves. Text associated with the image: "Newscast video frame showing OJ wearing black gloves just like (sic - the evidence gloves were brown) those found at the murder scene and behind Kato's cabin." Maybe this is why your source is called Altered Dimensions. The gloves were not Aris Isotoner gloves. MR. COCHRAN: All right. One last question. With regard to Aris--the Aris--and Mr. Darden kept saying Isotoner. Did you tell us yesterday it wasn't Isotoner, these are Aris lights? MR. RUBIN: Isotoner was a different product line than leather gloves. These are Aris leather light gloves. I understand how hard it is for wingnut news to get the details right, but when all else fails, read the transcript. And Altered Dimensions seems to think that a picture of O. J. Simpson wearing BLACK gloves, gloves they identify as Aris Isotoner gloves, definitely depict O. J. Simpson wearing the same exact gloves as the BROWN Aris Leather Light gloves in evidence. - - - - - - - - - - https://i2.wp.com/altereddimensions.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-42.png The image link is shown above. Oh, there they ain't. http://altereddimensions.net/2012/oj-simpson-murders The image appears in the article at Altered Dimensions at the link above. The image has the embedded text, "O. J. wearing the same type of gloves." MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct? MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement. The gloves depicted in the image are BLACK. The gloves in evidence are BROWN. The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all. He could not rule out that they were Aris gloves. He also could not rule out that is was a different glove from a different manufacturer.
No. He said he saw no features that would indicate they were not Aris gloves. Read the transcript.
No. He said he saw no features that would indicate they were not Aris gloves. Read the transcript. Really. What transcript did you read? The tortured phrasing was, "What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of." He could not unequivocally identify the photo gloves as Aris, or anything else. He saw features that were not unique to Aris. He does not claim to have knowledge of every brand of glove, and he worked for only one brand. In his tortured way, he admitted he could not unequivocally say the photo gloves were Aris gloves, and he admitted that he saw nothing to unequivocally identify them as any other brand. He saw non-unique features that did not identify any brand. MR. BLASIER: Did you indicate in your letter on all eight photos none of the detail that can be seen indicates that the gloves could be a style other than 70263? MR. RUBIN: I did. [18774] MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct? MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement. Asked directly if he was saying unequivocally that the glove in the pictures was an Aris glove, Richard Rubin testified, "That's not the case." He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove.
He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto.
He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove. Potayto, potahto. I will remind you again, your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. The only matter that could justify any finding by the jury is evidence adduced at trial. I provided testimonial evidence adduced at the trial, from a transcript of said testimony. MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony. MR. RUBIN: What I meant-- THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled. MR. RUBIN: What I meant by that statement categorically was that the features that I could see in the pictures, not one feature would lead me to a non 70263 Aris light style. That's what I meant by the statement. [18775] MR. BLASIER: By the statement you made yesterday to us? MR. RUBIN: Yes. - - - - - - - - - - MR. BLASIER: Did you indicate in your letter on all eight photos none of the detail that can be seen indicates that the gloves could be a style other than 70263? MR. RUBIN: I did. [18774] MR. BLASIER: You're indicating unequivocally that in your opinion, from those pictures that you had last July, it was an Aris glove, correct? MR. RUBIN: That's not the case. What I meant by that statement categorically was that I did not see any features in any one of those photos that would indicate that it would be any other style that I had knowledge of. That's what I meant by that statement. Asked directly if he was saying unequivocally that the glove in the pictures was an Aris glove, Richard Rubin testified, "That's not the case." He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove. He admitted that he was not familiar with all styles of gloves by all manufacturers in the world. He worked for one manufacturer, and one only. - - - - - - - - - - The glove expert testified that he could not unequivocally identify the photographed gloves were Aris brand gloves, much less specifically style 70263. He identified features on Aris gloves that are also present on other brands of gloves. He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves. And he did not see anything to make him certain it was an Aris glove. Proving, he saw a glove in a photograph which he could not positively identify.
No. They had to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. You're trying to set a new standard where if the prosecution can cause any doubt whatsoever the evidence should be ignored. He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves. He admitted that or you assumed that? Because I can't find anything in the transcript to back up your claim. You're ignoring all the other glove evidence presented to the jury which, when taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning.
He admitted that or you assumed that? Because I can't find anything in the transcript to back up your claim. You're ignoring all the other glove evidence presented to the jury which, when taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning. He affirmatively testified to it as fact. I am sorry you can't find it in the transcript. You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning." You have not even identified what it is about. And next time give me a warning when you are going to say you read the transcript. My keyboard and my side thingees thank you. On direct, Rubin was asked if the brossier stitch is unique to the Aris glove. He said "Very." And he testified that "[t]he palm vent is the least unique characteristic of the specific style in question." On cross, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the brossier stitch was not unique to the Aris glove. He testified that silking, the three stripes on the back, is very common. MR. DARDEN: The Brossier stitching is unique to the glove? MR. RUBIN: Very. MR. DARDEN: Okay. How about the vent, the palm vent? MR. RUBIN: The palm vent is the least unique characteristic of the specific style in question. - - - - - - - - - - Zero for effort. Rubin testified that he checked with two companies to see if they might have used Brossier stitching and produced gloves without stitching (blind seam). The second one said yes, and he stopped looking. MR. BLASIER: Now, you made some effort to try and find out what other manufacturers in the world might have used Brossier stitching and produced gloves without stitching, correct? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did. MR. BLASIER: And how many different companies did you check with? MR. RUBIN: I only checked with two. MR. BLASIER: There are a lot more companies than that in the world, aren't there? MR. RUBIN: In the world? Yes. MR. BLASIER: Now, did you ever check with any glove companies in Europe or Italy? MR. RUBIN: No, I did not. MR. BLASIER: In Europe? MR. RUBIN: No, I did not. MR. BLASIER: Other glove companies other than the two that you've told us about? MR. RUBIN: No, I did not. MR. BLASIER: And what are those two companies? MR. RUBIN: Fownes gloves, F-O-W-N-E-S, and Mr. Zuckerware's company, grand-o gloves. MR. BLASIER: And Grand-O does produce a glove with Brossier stitching, doesn't it? MR. RUBIN: They told me that they had produced a glove with Brossier stitching a couple of years ago in small quantity. - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Rubin contacted two companies to inquire if they used a brossier stitch. The second company, half of the total, affirmed it used the brossier stitch in gloves. Mr. Rubin's search ended at that point. He admits there could be hundreds of glove manufacturers in Europe, and he expresses that he has no idea how many use a brossier stitch. He admits he has actually seen the stitch on Italian gloves. The brossier stitch was not unique to Aris 70263. MR. BLASIER: Okay. So the two companies--the only two companies that you checked with, one of them does this stitch, correct? MR. RUBIN: One out of two. MR. BLASIER: Now, if--do you have any idea how many other glove manufacturers there are in the world? MR. RUBIN: I have no idea. MR. BLASIER: If--would you agree that there's over a hundred other glove manufacturers in various parts in the world that--go ahead. MR. RUBIN: If you define glove manufacturers as anybody who is manufacturing quantity and distributing it on their own, a person who has six employees in a small shop technically is a glove manufacturer. So I'd say in places like Italy, Hungary and certain other eastern European countries, there could be hundreds of manufacturers. They would relatively be quite small as far as production. MR. BLASIER: How many of those have a Brossier machine? MR. RUBIN: I have no idea. MR. BLASIER: Now, you know that--you've seen this stitch on an Italian glove some years ago, didn't you? MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did. MR. BLASIER: From a small company? MR. RUBIN: I don't know what company it was from. MR. BLASIER: Have you made any effort to contact singer to find out other machines there are throughout the world? MR. RUBIN: No, I have not. MR. BLASIER: Are there any other machines that can make a stitch that looks like this stitch? MR. RUBIN: This stitch is a very fine whip stitch, and the machine that I'm familiar with, it does make a stitch that's similar. That's the Ozan sewing machine. The one I'm thinking of is made by a company called treasure. [18784] MR. BLASIER: And can that make a stitch that looks like this? MR. RUBIN: Similar, but not the same. MR. BLASIER: Different in what way? MR. RUBIN: The Ozan sewing machine normally runs at about 10 to 12 stitches per minute. The Brossier sewing machine runs at twice that, and the difference is in the bite. When it's a whip stitch, most of those whip stitch type machines in the bite, you get a high, low effect on the Ozan stitching machine and you get a larger seam than you would on a continuous seam and fine seam on the Brossier. But to a layman, the stitch is--stitches would appear to be somewhat similar. MR. BLASIER: Can the Ozan machine do a 22-inch--22 stitch per inch stitch? MR. RUBIN: I'm not a technician. I'm not sure if it's capable of making a stitch that tight or not. I've never seen Aris production or some other production with Ozan do more than 12 stitches an inch on the Ozan machine. MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort - incidentally, Ozan machines are fairly common, aren't they? MR. RUBIN: Within Aris, the largest amount of gloves that were out on the marketplace were Ozan. MR. BLASIER: Other companies have Ozan stitching machines, don't they? MR. RUBIN: I believe they do. MR. BLASIER: It's a common machine, isn't it? MR. RUBIN: It's a common machine, readily available. MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the Bonis Golden series never-stop machines? MR. RUBIN: I've heard the term Bonis, but I'm not familiar with the machine. MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a flyer for that machine. MR. DARDEN: Objection. He's not familiar with it. THE COURT: I'm sorry? [18785] MR. DARDEN: Objection. What he's relying on, he's not familiar with. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. DARDEN: Can I see the flyer then? (Brief pause.) MR. DARDEN: It's dated 1995. Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BLASIER: Would you take a look at that, tell me if you're familiar with that machine? MR. DARDEN: 352, your Honor. No authentication. THE COURT: Overruled. The question is, is he familiar with the machine. MR. RUBIN: Since I never really looked at the numbers on the machines that were at Aris Philippines for style--I've seen similar machines to this with the wheel. I'm very familiar with that. It's very common. But I don't know for a fact that it was a Bonis BG12 machine. MR. BLASIER: All right. So the machines you've seen, they can do 25 stitches an inch, can't they? MR. RUBIN: I've never seen them do 25 stitches to the inch. MR. BLASIER: Can they do 25 stitches an inch? MR. RUBIN: I could not state that to this court if I had not done it myself. I've never-- MR. BLASIER: Can that machine do 25 stitches an inch? MR. RUBIN: According to the flyer, this will-- MR. DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. - - - - - - - - - - Silking, the three stripes on the back, is very common. Rubin made no effort to find out what other machines might make a stitch as fine as the brossier stitch made by Aris. MR. BLASIER: So I take it then other than calling two companies and asking them specifically about the Brossier machine, you made no effort to find out what kind of other machines might make a stitch that fine? MR. RUBIN: I have not. MR. BLASIER: Now, the two companies that you contacted, did you just ask them about the Brossier stitching? MR. RUBIN: Well, in regard to Fownes, I asked them if they had any of the equipment. They told me no, and that was pretty much the end of the conversation. And I do have friends that work there. So we may have discussed other things that I'm not aware of. In regard to my conversation with Mr. Zuckerware, a technician within their company was in the room and mentioned the style number or the-- MR. BLASIER: Objection. Nonresponsive. THE COURT: All right. Ask your next question. MR. RUBIN: You know, I don't remember what I spoke with them about. THE COURT: Hold on. MR. BLASIER: You didn't ask anybody about the three lines, the silking on the back, did you, in terms of how other people may or may not use that? MR. RUBIN: I did not discuss anything other than the Brossier. MR. BLASIER: So you've made no effort to find out how common or rare the silking is, and that's the three points on the back? MR. RUBIN: I think I earlier stated that it's very common.
That can be found in my post #231.
That can be found in my post #231. You provided zero evidence at your #231. Not even a whisper of a phantom hint of evidence. You produced your laundry list of crap which I have clearly demonstrated, point by point, with transcription evidence, was directly contrary to the evidence adduced at the criminal trial. Judge Ito explained what was evidence for the criminal trial jury: [...] EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS, MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT. EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL. DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT'S EVIDENCE, WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN. AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE. This crap is not evidence: -- She was married to OJ when she bought the gloves. Now, based on the totality of that evidence, isn't it reasonable to assume those gloves were given to, and worn, by OJ? This is evidence: MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A? MS. VEMICH: No. The criminal trial failed to show that the purchased gloves were XL or any other size, that they were brown or any other color, that they were the same as the gloves in evidence, or that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore them.
Nicole was married to OJ at the time she bought those gloves. Subsequent to that, OJ was pictured wearing gloves that looked identical to the gloves his wife purchased. A glove, identical to the one Nicole purchased, was found at the crime scene, and it's mate was found on OJ's property. OJ never produced, as evidence for the defense, the gloves he was wearing in the photos -- - -- -- despite the fact that it would have absolutely destroyed the prosecution's case. Now, you take all those facts together -- which I've really watered down -- and you tell me they don't point to OJ? As I said to you before, you think that all these little pickaninny doubts you've collected amount to reasonable doubt? Pfffft!
Provide your source of knowledge of when the gloves worn by the killer were purchased? The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt. Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation. The Aris glove expert stated he could not positively identify any glove in the photographs as an Aris glove. What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove? DET. LUPER: I don't believe so. It may have been, but I'm not too sure. MR. DARDEN: Okay. But it was a size large glove, wasn't it? DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: Not an extra large, but a large, correct? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: And you thought the glove was significant, so you kept it in your possession, right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: And then you went downstairs? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: Why did you place that glove on the table? DET. LUPER: Well, I knew that there was blood spots or what appeared to be blood splats--blood spots at the--in the foyer, and I was just trying to look for additional spots on the wood floor, and there appeared to be several going--trailing from the foyer and past to the den area. And in trying to examine them, I put my notebook down on the floor as well as the glove on that--on the little table there to take a better look at it. That's all. MR. DARDEN: And that glove was videotaped by Mr. Ford as it lay on that table, correct? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: And that glove was also photographed by the crime scene photographer, Mike Wilson; is that correct? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. - - - - - - - - - - The expert testimony, which I quoted to you from a transcript, proves that your repeated attempts to claim the Bloomingdale's transaction involved the gloves of the killer, the gloves in evidence, is without foundation. O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence. The jury could not consider your negative inference as it would require a violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution. What is very obvious is that you are unable to cite evidence produced at the trial to support your empty claims. MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Is there way for you to tell us that the two gloves I showed you here in court were purchased during the transaction shown here in People's 372-A? MS. VEMICH: No. You have repeatedly served up empty claims and have demonstrated an inability to cite actual evidence at trial to back up said claims. Evidence, real or imaginary, which points toward someone is decidedly not proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt. [nolu chan #94] The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction. [misterwhite #97] They had 10X more than they needed. Why do you not have 10x more evidence than you need?
I was trying to be as generous as possible. I refrained from saying the gloves were identical. "The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt." Again, in an attempt to be generous, I refrained from saying the gloves were the ones purchased at Bloomindales. Simply that they appeared to be the same. My point was that, taken together, it's clear these are all the same gloves. "What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove?" Different brand. Different fit. You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial? Was OJ faking it? "O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence." True. But why wouldn't he in this case? It would have essentially destroyed the prosecutions case.
I was trying to be as generous as possible. I refrained from saying the gloves were identical. Again, in an attempt to be generous, I refrained from saying the gloves were the ones purchased at Bloomindales. Simply that they appeared to be the same. The gloves did not appear to be identical. That is not the testimony. The appearance was consistent with the evidence gloves, based on the observance with certain features, features that were also consistent with other gloves. The result was that the expert testified that he could not state unequivocally that the photographed gloves were the same brand, Aris, as the killer's gloves in evidence. He testified that he could not even swear that they were the same brand. The Bloomingdale's expert testified that it was impossible to tell, from the receipt, whether the gloves involved in that transaction were the gloves in evidence. Just because something appears like something else is not proof that it is something else. You and the prosecution have presented insufficient evidence to justify a finding that the photographed gloves are, in fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, the killer's gloves in evidence. Appear to be is not a substitute for is. In your argument about the Rockingham gloves, you attempt to maintain that Fuhrman testified: A: YES, YES. And Vanatter testified: A: WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST. [...] Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL? A: IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE. And Dr. Henry Lee testified, And, you try to maintain that does not mean the Rockingham glove was moist or sticky. With the Bloomingdale's glove, based on expert testimony that it was impossible to say that the glove was black or brown, L or XL or any other size, you afformatively conclude that Nicole Simpson was married to O.J. Simpson at the time it was bought. You conclude that the photographs show O.J. wearing the killer's gloves where the expert testimony concluded that it was not possible to conclude that it was the same brand as the killer's glove, much less the same exact glove. It is like Alice in Wonderland, the testimonial evidence means exactly what you want it to mean, neither more nor less. Different brand. Different fit. You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial? Was OJ faking it? There is no testimony to affirmatively establish that these were a different brand or fit. Before Det. Luper left the scene, he replaced the glove in O.J.'s chest of drawers. DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. That particular item, after a conversation I had with Detective Lange and Vannatter, was returned to the location I had recovered it from. MR. COCHRAN: All right. In other words, what you did with it, you took it back upstairs; is that right? DET. LUPER: That's correct. - - - - - - - - - - DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. MR. COCHRAN: Did you put it back in the-- DET. LUPER: I put it back where I had found it. MR. COCHRAN: You put it back where you got it from? DET. LUPER: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: You didn't leave there with it, did you? DET. LUPER: No, sir. Det. Luper's non-expert testimony about it being an Aris brand glove was, "I don't think so." That expresses uncertainty and will not support your assertion that it was a different brand. It is not proof that it either was or wasn't an Aris glove. That glove was never in evidence. Det. Luper testified that after he discovered he had left it on the downstairs table, he took it upstairs and put it back where he found it. The only reason the people found out about that glove is that Det. Luper, after keeping the video in his desk for three or four months, allegedly took it to Parker Center and left it in a filing cabinet in the O.J. Simpson war room. In the last week of February 1995, Luper was informed he might have to testify about the search warrant. In March, Luper alleged went to Parker Center and found the tape. Alternatively, Det. Luper may have been informed of his need to testify and removed the tape from his desk, taken it to Parker Center, put it in a filing cabinet, and declared it found. He did not tell anybody about the existence of the tape until March 22 or 23, 1995. A: THAT'S RIGHT. Q: IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE HERE? A: YES, SIR. Q: YOU DIDN'T TESTIFY IN ANY OF THE PRETRIAL MOTIONS, DID YOU? A: NO, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN WERE YOU TOLD THAT AND BY WHOM? A: I WAS TOLD THAT THE LAST WEEK OF FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO INFORMED ME OF THAT. Q: SO IN FEBRUARY, VANNATTER TOLD YOU YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TESTIFY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH WARRANT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. YES, SIR. Q: AND THEN YOU STARTED LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEOS AND YOU DISCOVERED THIS TAPE, RIGHT? A: I -- LOOKING AT PHOTOS, YES. NO VIDEO, BUT I DO -- I REALIZED WE HAD A VIDEO AT THAT TIME, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN DID YOU BRING THE FACT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT YOU HAD THIS VIDEO? A: THAT WAS EITHER MARCH 22ND OR MARCH 23RD OF THIS YEAR, SIR. Q: SO EVEN THOUGH YOU KNEW -- YOU DISCOVERED IT YOURSELF BACK IN FEBRUARY? A: NO. I BELIEVE IT WAS PROBABLY A WEEK OR TWO AFTER THAT THAT THAT I DISCOVERED IT. Q: SO MAYBE THE FIRST PART OF MARCH? A: YEAH. WITHIN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF MARCH, YES, SIR. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU FIRST -- YOU TOLD THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS OR SOME REPRESENTATIVE ON OR ABOUT MARCH 22ND? A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR. Q: WHO WAS TOLD? A: DETECTIVE TOM LANGE WAS TOLD, AT WHICH TIME WE MADE A NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THEN THERE WAS -- THEN SUBSEQUENTLY TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. Q: WHO IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DID YOU TALK TO? A: I DON'T RECALL THE NAME, SIR. I DIDN'T MAKE THE CALL. Q: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FIRST WEEK OR SO OF MARCH? A: NO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON MARCH 22ND OR THE 23RD. Q: BUT WHEN YOU FIRST DISCOVERED IT DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, WHO IN THE ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DIVISION DID YOU TALK TO ABOUT THIS? A: NOBODY. Q: YOU DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY AT FIRST? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU TOLD SOMEBODY IN ROBBERY-HOMICIDE? A: IT WAS EITHER -- IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO EITHER BE MARCH 22ND OR THE 23RD BECAUSE THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY MYSELF. Q: AND WHO DID YOU TELL AT THAT POINT? A: DETECTIVE LANGE. Q: SO ANY PARTICULAR REASON YOU DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY BETWEEN THE TIME YOU DISCOVERED IT THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH AND MARCH 22ND, 23RD? A: NO PARTICULAR REASON OTHER THAN I DIDN'T AT THAT TIME FEEL THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY NEEDED TO KNOW BECAUSE OF THE REASONS IT WAS BEING HELD INITIALLY. Q: I SEE. AND WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING FOR WHY THIS TAPE WAS SHOT ORIGINALLY? A: IT WAS SHOT STRICTLY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, TO RECORD THE VALUABLE ITEMS AT MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE AND TO PREVENT ANY CIVIL LIABILITY THAT MIGHT ARISE IN THE FUTURE. - - - - - - - - - - I do not have to hope anything. As you observe, the gloves in the Darden evidence demonstration fail of the century did not fit. Seeing this, the jury did acquit. True. But why wouldn't he in this case? It would have essentially destroyed the prosecutions case. Because pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, Simpson had no duty to volunteer evidence, and it is forbidden to draw any negative inference for any such failure to volunteer evidence. A lawyer who argued your "point" would be subject to sanctions by the court. The jury cannot support a verdict of guilt by a claim that Simpson, based on a unsupportable claim that Simpson had such evidence, and did not volunteer it. The defendant need not product either testimonial or physical evidence. The prosecution had the sole responsibility to produce evidence proving Simpson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you believe Simpson did the crime, or whether you perceive real or imaginary evidence that was not presented to the jury is not the topic of dicsussion. It is whether the prosecution produced sufficient evidence for the jury to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and reach a verdict of guilty. You said, at #97, "[t]hey had 10x more than they needed." If the jury had it, you seem to be having trouble finding it, substituting your personal beliefs for evidence not actually presented, frequently in direct conflict with evidence actually presented.
But if OJ wore a size Large as you claim, an Extra Large should easily fit, right? Yet OJ struggled and struggled to get them on. How do you explain that?
I did not claim that OJ wore anything. I quoted the verbatim transcript of testimony that the only glove found at OJ's residence was believed to be a non-Aris brand, and size large, and not size extra large. DET. LUPER: I don't believe so. It may have been, but I'm not too sure. MR. DARDEN: Okay. But it was a size large glove, wasn't it? DET. LUPER: Yes, sir. MR. DARDEN: Not an extra large, but a large, correct? DET. LUPER: That's correct. Yes, sir. Maybe OJ didn't wear that glove but kept it as a reminder that Nicole did not know his glove size. I do not know and don't care. Like the prosecution, I do not explain it. The important fact is that the killer's glove demonstrably did not fit O.J. Simpson. Whether is was mislabeling or manufacturer's defect, the evidence gloves did not fit. If they do not fit, you must acquit. Or you must come up with a very good, believeable explanation, something the prosecution failed to do. Your mission impossible, which you chose to accept, was to show that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty. In contrast, the mission I chose to accept, was to show that the prosecution failed to place sufficient evidence before the jury to justify their returning a verdict of guilty. I am not trying to prove OJ as innocent. I am showing the prosecution was an abysmal mess and failed to provide evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When they got done, there was a better case to convict the LAPD witnesses of serial perjury than to convict Simpson of murder. The socks at Rockingham led to one of the funniest lawyer fails between a prosecution attorney and Judge Ito. The witness was Det. Bert Luper. A: NO, SIR. Q: WHO GAVE HER THIS WALK-THROUGH? A: I DID. Q: AND WHAT TIME DID THE WALK-THROUGH START, IF YOU RECALL? MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS HEARING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST RELEVANT QUESTION I'VE HEARD SO FAR THIS MORNING. MS. LEWIS: OH. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MS. LEWIS: THE RELEVANCE JUST OCCURRED TO ME. THE COURT: THERE IS A DISCOVERY SANCTIONS ISSUE I THINK.
Yeah. Right. That sounds reasonable. So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to. Fine. Then why not produce the Aris gloves while they're at it? Hmmmmm?
[misterwite #247 to nolu chan #252] Hmmmmm? In #252 I responded to your question by stating that OJ did not provide gloves to the prosecution "because he had lawyers who were not idiots." You attempt to misstate this as "So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to." The prosecution did not unconstitutionally demand that the defense produce more gloves. The defense did not volunteer to produce more gloves, and did not provide more gloves. That was because the very excellent defense lawyers were not idiots. [nolu chan #251] OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves. Just as there was no way for the prosecution to show that the evidence gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves, there would have been no way for OJ to prove another two pairs of gloves were the Bloomingdale's gloves. Advice to a defendant is like advice to a military nube -- keep your mouth shut, your bowels open, and never volunteer. The was no advantage to be gained by O.J. in providing any gloves, despite your absurd argument to the contrary. Further, it is unconstitutional to draw any negative inference in relation to O.J. not volunteering evidence you assume to have been in his possession.
The prosecution claimed that Nicole purchased two pairs of Aris gloves and gave them to OJ. The prosecution further claimed that one pair was used in the murder. If OJ presented both pairs of gloves that he was given, well, that blows up the prosecution's case, does it not? Yet he didn't.
#269. To: misterwhite (#264)
The prosecution claimed, and the prosecution expert witness testified that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to verify the claim. A prosecution claim is not a fact without supporting evidence. No. I would rather have a drunk lawyer from night court than you. It was impossible for the prosecution to prove that the gloves in evidence were part of the Bloomingdale's transaction. The prosecution was unable to prove that OJ Simpson ever owned or wore Aris Leather Light brown XL gloves. Further, the prosecution was unable to prove that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore any Aris brand glove, of any size or color. Had OJ possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, they could not be proven to be part of the Bloomingdale's transaction. He may have owned six pairs, or none at all. That was for the prosecution to prove. They did not. Had O.J. Simpson possessed and produced two more pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, the prosecution could use them to establish that O.J. Simpson owned and wore Aris Leather Light gloves. If he produced a pair in brown, XL, the prosecution could establish that he owned and wore Aris Leather Light goves in brown, XL. The prosecution could argue that he owned more than two pairs of Aris Leather Light gloves, and more than one pair in brown, XL. There is a significant downside for O.J. Simpson. There is no upside. Contary to your ridiculous assertion, O.J. Simpson producing Aris Leather Light gloves for the prosecution would not have blown up the prosecution case.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: misterwhite (#2)
Did you know that a jury can also convict a defendant if the jury disagrees with the law? Yes they can. The jury has the final word, one way or the other.
#8. To: Pinguinite (#5)
"Uhhh... That's not completely true, actually. Judges have the power to vacate jury convictions, but not jury acquittals."
#14. To: misterwhite (#8)
#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)
"I see no reason why juries should not openly have nullification power explained to them."
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
I agree. IF both types of nullification are explained to them:
#21. To: Pinguinite (#19)
"Given that convictions require unanimous agreement, and given that jurists are initially screened to ensure they have no personal relations with the accused, and given the average person would be willing to judge a stranger fairly, I would be inclined to accept your terms."
#23. To: misterwhite (#21)
The jury would be allowed give police testimony more weight than others who testify.
#25. To: Pinguinite (#23)
"You are trying very hard to get people to say that jury nullification would be a disaster."
#28. To: misterwhite (#25)
My only point was that if you're going to instruct the jury on nullification acquittal then, to be fair and complete, you should also instruct the jury on nullification conviction.
As to whether or not nullifying laws that someone is accused of violating would be a disaster, that depends on the law in question. Put a Muslim on a jury and he may nullify a spousal abuse law. A Christian may nullify a gay rights law.
Jurors are not supposed to write the laws. If the law is bad or unfair, there are ways to handle that outside a jury room.
#42. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#28)
"Nullification serves as a test of the law itself"
#83. To: misterwhite (#42)
You don't know that. Jurors are not required to fill out a questionairre describing the reasons the voted the way they did.
Was OJ acquitted because the law against murder was unfair?
#89. To: nolu chan (#83)
"OJ was acquitted because the prosecutiion failed miserably to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed the crime."
#94. To: misterwhite (#89)
The OJ trial was the poster child for jury nullification.
#106. To: nolu chan (#94)
The evidence was not presented to sustain a conviction.
#119. To: misterwhite (#106)
101 PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT PROOVE O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE:
1. Nicole's pet dog Kato, a ferocious Akita, did not attack the killer, suggesting the murderer was someone who the dog knew, such as OJ.
#120. To: nolu chan (#119)
"Pick one out from the laundry list that you feel is strong, or strongest, and I will take it on."
#186. To: misterwhite (#120)
#188. To: nolu chan (#186)
"Ron Goldman drove Nicole's Ferrari."
#193. To: misterwhite (#188)
By the way, Nicole purchased those gloves three years before she even met Ron Goldman.
MR. DARDEN: And what was the selling price on December 18, 1990, if you know?
MS. VEMICH: They were $55.00, but during December 18th they were marked down at thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: Could you describe style no. 70263, the Aris Isotoner leather light glove?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. This particular glove has many characteristics that are very distinctive to this type of glove. One of the first characteristics is the leather. The leather is extremely lightweight, almost paper thin, and that was one characteristic. The second was the stitching. The stitching of this glove was called a Brossier stitch which is a very refined whip stitch. [11553]
MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. That calls for speculation, I suppose.
THE COURT: I think she is an expert.
MS. VEMICH: These gloves were extremely lightweight. The reason they sold, from my experience in waiting on customers, is that they were almost like a second skin. Umm, you could pick up a penny or a needle practically with them and they were very--again they are very, very thin, and many people like that about these gloves and that is why they were called leather light and that is why we marked them leather lights and it was a big seller. It was a big part of my business. [11528]
MS. VEMICH: Yes. That is the retail for the two pair of gloves.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And to the right of the "$77.00" we see the no. "30"; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes. And that is thirty percent off.
MR. DARDEN: So that means in the two pairs of gloves were purchased for thirty percent off at $77.00?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us what the regular price of the gloves was?
MS. VEMICH: The regular price of gloves of this style is $55.00.
MS. VEMICH: There was only one Aris glove that I sold at $55.00.
MR. DARDEN: Was style number was that?
MS. VEMICH: 70263.
MR. DARDEN: And which glove the style number is 70263?
MS. VEMICH: Aris leather light glove.
MR. DARDEN: So the gloves I showed you in court today then fit the descriptions given on this sales receipt?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the style number on the sales receipt indicates 70268; is that correct?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did Bloomingdales ever sell an Aris glove style no. 70268?
MR. DARDEN: To borrow a phrase, is that a mistake?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Does that mistake--strike that. The mistake is that the "8" should have been a "3"?
MS. VEMICH: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, misleading.
THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. DARDEN: What is the mistake?
MS. VEMICH: The last digit should be a "3," not an "8." MR. DARDEN: Has Bloomingdales ever purchased Aris glove style no. 70268?
MS. VEMICH: No.
MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not Aris style no. 70268 has ever been sold in the United States?
MS. VEMICH: Not that I--I don't know. MR. DARDEN: May I have one moment, your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Brief pause.) MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove? MS. VEMICH: No, it does not. MR. DARDEN: Does it indicate the color of the glove?
#202. To: nolu chan (#193)
The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.
#209. To: misterwhite (#202)
#202. To: nolu chan (#193)
The gloves used paper thin leather. They would not keep hands warm in New York or Chicago in winter.
The left-hand glove found at Nicole’s home and the right-hand glove found at OJ’s home prove to be a match. They also prove to be Simpson’s size (despite Simpson’s theatrics in court, pretending that the glove did not fit). Even though Simpson claimed under oath that he did not own a pair of Aris Isotoner gloves, several media pictures emerged showing Simpson wearing these exact gloves.
[11607]
Oh, here they are:
[18774]
#213. To: nolu chan (#209)
The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all.
#218. To: misterwhite (#213)
The expert could not unequivocally say the gloves in the pictures were Aris gloves at all.
[18773]
#223. To: nolu chan (#218)
"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."
#226. To: misterwhite (#223)
"He could not unquivocally identify the glove in the pictures as an Aris glove."
MR. BLASIER: Did you tell us yesterday that what you meant by that sentence is what it says, that you could--that in your opinion, these were the Aris style gloves?
[18773]
He didn't see anything to make him think it wasn't an Aris glove.
#227. To: nolu chan (#226)
"was to prove that the O.J. Simpson jury had sufficient evidence before it to return a verdict of guilty."
#228. To: misterwhite (#227)
He identified a brossier stitch which he was forced to admit was also found on non-Aris gloves. He identified three lines on the back which he admitted were found on non-Aris gloves. He identified a vent which he admitted is found on non-Aris gloves. He identified no feature unique to Aris brand gloves.
[18744]
[18782]
[18783]
[18786]
#233. To: nolu chan (#228)
You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning."
#237. To: misterwhite (#233)
You have not presented a whisper of the phantom "other glove evidence presented to the jury which, taken together with Rubin's testimony, is consistent and damning."
YOU MUST DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS CASE FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE.
Well, let's see:
-- The gloves she purchased were a size XL. (OJ wore a size XL.)
-- They were of a fine leather, cashmere-lined, and expensive. Something a celebrity like OJ would wear.
-- OJ was pictured wearing gloves that sure did look like the ones she purchased.
-- One glove, identical to the glove she purchased, was found at the crime scene.
-- The matching glove was found at OJ's house.
-- The original gloves Nicole purchased were never produced at trial as a defense exhibit.
MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?
#238. To: nolu chan (#237)
The criminal trial failed to show that the purchased gloves were XL or any other size, that they were brown or any other color, that they were the same as the gloves in evidence, or that O.J. Simpson ever owned or wore them.
#240. To: misterwhite (#238)
Nicole was married to OJ at the time she bought those gloves. Subsequent to that, OJ was pictured wearing gloves that looked identical to the gloves his wife purchased.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the glove that you removed from the Defendant's chest, was that an Aris glove?
A glove, identical to the one Nicole purchased, was found at the crime scene, and it's mate was found on OJ's property. OJ never produced, as evidence for the defense, the gloves he was wearing in the photos -- - -- -- despite the fact that it would have absolutely destroyed the prosecution's case.
MR. DARDEN: Now, does the sales receipt indicate the size of the glove?
Now, you take all those facts together -- which I've really watered down -- and you tell me they don't point to OJ? As I said to you before, you think that all these little pickaninny doubts you've collected amount to reasonable doubt? Pfffft!
#243. To: nolu chan (#240)
Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation.
#245. To: misterwhite (#243)
Your claim of a photograph with O.J. wearing gloves that appear identical to the gloves in evidence is without foundation.
"The expert testimony, as I quoted, stated that it was impossible to say if the gloves in evidence were the gloves of the Bloomingdale's receipt."
My point was that, taken together, it's clear these are all the same gloves.
Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?
Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
DR. LEE: Experienced criminalist should know how long to get dry. Once you dump out on paper, you should see whether or not dry. To touch or not touch, the amateur does that. We don't do that.
"What say you about the glove found in a chest of drawers in O.J.'s bedroom at Rockingham on 13 April 1995? What was he doing with a size Large glove?"
MR. COCHRAN: And the brown glove that you had on the table that you had inadvertently left on the table downstairs, did you do anything regarding the brown glove?
MR. COCHRAN: I'm saying, by the end of the day, did you take the glove back upstairs at some point?
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT SOME POINT, YOU WERE TOLD THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TESTIFY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH WARRANT?
You'd better hope that's the case because if OJ did indeed wear a size Large, then why didn't the Extra Large fit him at the trial?
"O.J. was under no obligation to produce evidence."
#249. To: nolu chan (#245)
As you observe, the gloves in the Darden evidence demonstration fail of the century did not fit.
#253. To: misterwhite (#249)
But if OJ wore a size Large as you claim,
MR. DARDEN: Now, the glove that you removed from the Defendant's chest, was that an Aris glove?
an Extra Large should easily fit, right? Yet OJ struggled and struggled to get them on. How do you explain that?
Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DID NOT SEE HER BEING BRIEFED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT ALL?
#254. To: nolu chan (#253)
Maybe OJ didn't wear that glove but kept it as a reminder that Nicole did not know his glove size.
#259. To: misterwhite (#254)
[misterwhite 254] So the defense is more than willing to present glove evidence -- even though you insist they didn't have to. Fine. Then why not produce the Aris gloves while they're at it?
Because he had lawyers who were not idiots.
#264. To: nolu chan (#259)
"OJ providing two pair of Aris gloves would prove nothing other than that he owned and, presumably, wore Aris gloves."
Replies to Comment # 264. The prosecution claimed that Nicole purchased two pairs of Aris gloves and gave them to OJ. The prosecution further claimed that one pair was used in the murder.
If OJ presented both pairs of gloves that he was given, well, that blows up the prosecution's case, does it not? Yet he didn't.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 264.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]