MovieChat Forums > O.J.: Made in America (2016) Discussion > Marcia Clark is full of ....

Marcia Clark is full of ....

posted 8 years ago by EinsteinRosenBridge
55 replies | jump to latest

She keeps making up crap to justify her loss.

Now she says - I knew I had a lousy jury but I didn't want to get even a worse jury by keep selecting them so she agreed with the selection. And that she knew it was really hard case and uphill battle to win the case. Total crap.

She thought she had a good jury because she thought she could connect with black jurors. So stupid. Because she previous experience as a DA when she convicted penniless gang thugs from the ghetto with black jurors? That somehow suggested that the female black jurors would have allegiance to her over a rich popular black hero celebrity who would produce some form of doubt that would cover their desires to protect their ethnicity or allow some form of revenge for historical slights.

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

Sexism is still alive in 2016 as it was in 1994. Shocking.

If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list

[–] markb63 8 years ago

Don't forget, Marcia Clark chose not to introduce as evidence Simpson's "suicide" note and the slow-speed chase, both of which had guilt written all over them. And why? -- because in the letter and during the chase, Simpson said he didn't commit the murders. And Clark did not want the jury to hear that without the chance to cross-examine him. Of course the jury knows Simpson says he didn't do it; otherwise, there wouldn't be a trial!

I'm not sure any prosecutor could have won the case with that jury (which Clark helped pick, by the way), but her overall incompetence did not help matters.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

And Clark did not want the jury to hear that without the chance to cross-examine him. Of course the jury knows Simpson says he didn't do it; otherwise, there wouldn't be a trial!

Even though I think, ultimately, it was a mistake, I understand her reasoning. It's one thing for the jurors to hear the defendant saying s/he didn't commit the crimes in their own words/voice, without the possibility of cross examining him or her, and it's another to make the jump of assuming the jury fully realizes a defendant in essence is saying this because of claiming they're not guilty.

Of course the jury knows Simpson says he didn't do it; otherwise, there wouldn't be a trial!

Yeah, no. Even if he said he was guilty, there would still be a trial.

[–] EinsteinRosenBridge 8 years ago

It is hard to say whether anyone could have won that case. Bugliosi seems to think so but I think not.

Certainly no one in District Attorneys office at the time could have prevailed. They would have had to hire a special prosecutor from the outside or a former federal prosecutor like Manny Moreno to have a chance.

And regarding whether the County had the budget to hire jury consultants, the guy that virtually invented jury consultation offered his services free of charge and Marcia turned it down. If they had a smarter DA initially, they may have used his services more which might have produced a different jury. Further, a smarter DA might have recognized from the beginning that the case was unwinnable and shot for a hung jury reached plea bargain the second go around.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I thought they accepted the services of the jury consultant. If they didn't, why did they have those trial runs? The problem was Marcia Clark refused to accept the advice she was given, and thought she had some kind of special rapport with black women.

[–] EinsteinRosenBridge 8 years ago

They did an initial analysis with random people. Your correct that She didn't like the results so there was no jury consultant when they were doing actual selection.

Yeah - she thought that because she won a few trials against thugs with black female jurors she had a special relationship with them. She underestimated virtually every social dynamic that existed within the black community and Los Angeles at the time. Now she claims she knew the whole time.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Wasn't that analysis conducted by the juror consultant?

Right, she didn't like the results, and therefore ignored them. I don't know anything about her previous trials so can't characterize the defendants as "thugs." Regardless, she did think she could connect with and persuade female black jurors, and in this case she was utterly off base.

She underestimated virtually every social dynamic that existed within the black community and Los Angeles at the time.

It's easy to say that now, with the benefit of hindsight. But then it was far from clear. Which is why the majority of white people were so certain the verdict would be guilty and were so shocked that it wasn't.

Now she claims she knew the whole time.

This I agree with to a large degree.

[–] llll2000 8 years ago

I was a bit disappointed with this part of the documentary. Im sure some kind of deal was made to make Darden the fall guy of the DA team because he was the only one who didnt participate. I think Bugliosi (Manson DA) wrote a book about this and said she was beyond incompetent. I do believe her about the glove though, it appears to be Dardens idea.

[–] mharris1-1 8 years ago

I thought Marcia Clark and Darden were both excellent for the simple reason that 99.9% of the people *in the world* have concluded OJ is guilty. Everyone who watched the trial thought he was guilty except the black community in LA. Its not like Clark and Darden didn't prove their case- of course they did.

As far as the glove and other police blunders, mistakes are made every day in life and in trials. Some would say Johnny Cochrans closing arguments (where he brought up Hitler) were a HUGE mistake, but magically this jury ignored that.

Vincent Bugliosi was on TV during the trial expressing disgust about the jurors, I remember seeing him saying the jury was still calling OJ "the juice". He blamed the results of the trial on the jurors then, why change his mind now?

[–] llll2000 8 years ago

Harris,

no offense but a monkey could have prosecuted the case

all oj needed was to film himself doing the crime without a mask for them to have more evidence than they already had

[–] KhurramAtta 8 years ago

herself. She lost the trail due to her idiocy. Most probably a stupid feminist

Top 250 Foreign Movies
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls076565151/