Johnny Cochran dies...

I dont know much about the conditions of his death. Something about a brain tumor.

Umm... RIP I guess

Or burn in hell more like it.

If the coffin does fit...you must submit.

Johnny Cochran was a fantastic lawyer and a great activist. RIP. -Pat

WOW! This is a total shock to me

I'll never agree with his agenda, but he was good at
what he did.

Wow, that's quite a surprise. He was relatively young, was he not?

67 or 68 I believe.

Okay, a little older than I thought.

A great lawyer at what he did.....not to mention being a main character of that hilarious SOUTH PARK episode(remember?)

"This is Chewbacca...."

I didn't even know he was sick. I guess I need to watch the news a little more. God Speed to his family.

I am sorry to hear of his passing, even though I didn't always agree with his tactics and he wasn't my cup of tea. He was certainly a man who enjoyed life and fought for what he believed in.

RIP, Johnny

Without Johnny Cochrane, there wouldn't have been the Jackie Childs character on "Seinfeld"...

Yeah I remember that episode. "Listen to what I'm saying, it doesn't make sense"

I was gonna post about this just now... I just got home. I wasn't sure if it was going to be as "breaking news" everywhere else as it was here in L.A., and I'm sure in New York. Everywhere else, I figured it might be in the obits tomorrow or something. I guess not.

I love that little rhyme of yours, Beth. So morbid and classic.

RIP "I guess," like RB so eloquently said.

His agenda is to defend his clients as best he can, as you'd want for yourself. And if you think he was good at what he did, then your statement is contradictory.

Indeed, your job as a professional legally-affirmed attorney is the present your client to the fullest of his abilities.

Now the whole ethical cry whatever hes guilty or not....sorry kids, but thats a red herring. You're PAID to get your client "off"(or plead to a favorable deal). Then again, you still get paid even if you lose.

So all you that desire to be lawyers and wish they were the Perry Masons or Jack McCoys or Al Pacino's(from ...AND JUSTICE FOR ALL) or whatever....why don't you desire to be a do-good naive-as-f*ck politician like MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON or whatever the flunkin hell fiction you can dig up.

Sorry for that small tirade, but whatever Cochrane's "tactics" was ethically right or not, he was great at his job. Besides, if his tactics were so dis-tasteful, how come he was never disbarred? Just think about that....

I do think Simpson, after reading all the evidence back in the 1994 trial, was guilty, but that is my opinion.

R.I.P.

RIP. I remember him in the news alot during the OJ trial. He was something else!

To quote Janice Soprano, just "another toothpick." Sorry, but better folks than him have passed on without notice anywhere else on the 'Net.

I agree totally.

His agenda is to defend his clients as best he can, as you'd want for yourself. And if you think he was good at what he did, then your statement is contradictory. [/b][/quote]If a robber has robbed hundreds of homes without any problems, I would say he is good at what he did.

That means I have to agree with his agenda?

ronnierocket, why are you being a piss ant?

Overall the O.J. Simpson Trial was a travesty of justice, no doubt about it! The man literally got away with murder! His lawyers went to whatever extremes neccesary to cast doubt on their client's guilt. And I guess that it what a defense lawer is supposed to do! Let's remember that number 1, back in 1993/1994, the world was not as educated about DNA as they are today. So Barry Scheck did a great job in confusing the jury with it! Mr. Cochran, well he played the race card, and if that was ethically not correct, that's another story, but the bottom line is that he did cast doubt in those jurors minds! Hey, almost 12 years later and the saying " If the glove don't fit, you must aquit!" still is branded in the minds of thousands of americans! So in a way, Cochran got across what he intended to get across. One of the big mistakes that I thought was made in that trial was not having Mark Furman admit that he used the N word before! If he would have said, "yeah, sure, I used that word before," I think that it would have been better. Instead he lied about using that word, and Johnny Cochran did a fantastic job in making Furman look like a UNcredible cop, and a racist cop! Looking back at that case, and after reading several books about it, the fault lies in Judge Ito for his allowing the O.J. defense team to "take over" that courtroom. The fault also lies in the prosecutions handling of the case. There were many different pieces of evidence that the prosecutors wanted to put into evidence, but a man by the name of Gil Garcetti was in charge of the DA office, and he made some really questionable decisions as to what should and shouldn't have been placed into evidence as far as the prosecution was convcerned! Turns out that this man had very high political aspirations and there is no doubt that he let those political aspirations cloud his judgement and hinder the prosecuting team's case! If anyone wants to read a very interesting book about this case, read the book written by Christopher Darden. Very interesting! Bottom line is that I have always felt really sorry for the Goldman family! They did not deserve to have their son murdered the way that he was, and then have to be subject to the murderer getting off and laughing in their faces! What a travesty! No question that Cochran knew how to pick apart the weeknesses in the prosecutions case, and turn the whole thing around to destroy their credibility.


Don Cardi

The guy is dead and you're criticizing him right now. This thread was made for his memory. Make another thread. -Pat

While I believe that OJ was guilty, this was far from a "travesty of justice" Apparently, there was sufficient doubt in the minds of the jurors to acquit, which is quite reassuring, since that's what our system of jurisprudence is based upon. It's good to know that the burden of proof of guilt rests squarely on the shoulders of the state, and that someone cannot be convicted simply because the state brings charges, but must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If he did, he wasn't the first, and certainly won't be the last. But don't you prefer that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted?
Barry Scheck, who has done an enormous amount of work in freeing innocent people from death row based on DNA evidence which didn't exist at the time of their conviction did not "confuse" the jury.

Before the jury could even be made to understand DNA evidence, they first had ro be convinced that the evidence was uncontaminated and properly handled. All Scheck proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, was that the DNA evidence was improperly handled and might very well have been contaminated, thus casting doubt on the value of this evidence in the first place, whether the jury was confused by it or not.
What exactly is the "race card"? He proved that Blacks were systematically handled differently by the LAPD based on the police officers racial prejudices, that officers routinely lied in court, etc.
Let's be objective here. Whether he admiited using the "N Word" or not, Fuhrman was a racist, and the jury had every right to doubt everything he said.

Not because he lied about using the word, but because he absolutely was a racist.

How exactly did he do that?
Of what pieces of evidence do you speak?
I read several books as well, and don't recall the prosecution not using anything that would have been admissable.
If anyone wants to read an unbiased and very interesting book about the case, try Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case(Touchstone, 1996) by Alan Dershowitz.

I agree. No one deserves to be murdered.

But the preservation of our justice system, the greatest in the world, is more important than the individual rights or interests of one person or family.

This is the first time I have seen the OJ verdict rehashed in a looong time!

Not all memories are "happy" ones.

FWIW - I thought he was a good lawyer.

Mr. Soprano:

"ronnierocket, why are you being a piss ant?"

No, I was telling the truth. Fact is, lawyers are basically legal prostitutes(but the acquittal by a jury is equal to one mean Blowjob pretty much).

Barry Scheck, who has done an enormous amount of work in freeing innocent people from death row based on DNA evidence which didn't exist at the time of their conviction did not "confuse" the jury.

Before the jury could even be made to understand DNA evidence, they first had ro be convinced that the evidence was uncontaminated and properly handled. All Scheck proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, was that the DNA evidence was improperly handled and might very well have been contaminated, thus casting doubt on the value of this evidence in the first place, whether the jury was confused by it or not.
What exactly is the "race card"? He proved that Blacks were systematically handled differently by the LAPD based on the police officers racial prejudices, that officers routinely lied in court, etc.
Let's be objective here. Whether he admiited using the "N Word" or not, Fuhrman was a racist, and the jury had every right to doubt everything he said.

Not because he lied about using the word, but because he absolutely was a racist.

Of what pieces of evidence do you speak?
I read several books as well, and don't recall the prosecution not using anything that would have been admissable.
[QUOTE][qb]

Hmm, let's see..... A 2 hour Bronco chase. $30,000 in cash. A disguise, a suicude letter written to Nicole aplogozing for what happened! Pretty damning evidence if you ask me, wouldn' you say? But Mr. Garcetti felt that by putting the whole Bronco thing and all of it's details into evidence that the Jury just ight feel sorry for OJ! LOL! Yet the rest of the prosecution team wanted the Bronco stuff admitted, but Mr. Garcetti overruled them all! Oh and Plaw, OJ was allowed to make a statement at his own trial, but yet he did not have to take the stand. Swift move, I admit, but not really fair if you ask me.


As for Ito, he was a joke! Lost total control of that Courtroom! Intersting thing was that on one occassion, the jury sent him a note that they would like to attend a football game. Judge Ito went to Mr. Cochran and asked him if he could get tickets for the jury! Well of course Mr. Cochran came through with the tickets. No problem there. But then Judge Ito gave the tickets to the jury and when doing so informed them that the tickets were "compliments" of the OJ Simpson Legal Team! Yeah, real ethical behavior by Ito!


No one can ever convince me that this guy was innocent! Civil Rights my ass! If Ron Goldman's father had taken a gun and blown OJ away, would you be standing up for his civil rights Plaw! :rolleyes:

An uneducated Jury.
A Racist Defense Lawyer, a good one, but a racist one.
A celeb client.
A lying Detective.
A star struck judge.
A star struck prosecutor in Marcia Clarke.
A politically motivated District Attorney.
TONS of mixed blood evidence where the chances of it NOT being his and hers was a Trillion to one.
A car chase with damning evidence that is never put into the trial.
A defendant that makes a speech in the courtroom, stands in front of a jury STRUGGLING to get a glove on for 5 minutes, but yet pulls it right off without any problem in 1/2 a second. And the same defendant that was allowed to address the court both physically and verbally on two seperate occasions does NOT have to take the stand!
A bag that is handed over, by the police,
to a friend of OJ's, one Robert Cardasian, on the night of his being taken into custody. And then the very next day Mr. Cardasian suddenly becomes a member of OJ's defense team and now that black bag CANNOT be called into evidence! Haaaaaaa!

Thank God for Civil Liberties! :rolleyes:

But in getting back to Johhny Cochran, there is absolutely no doubt that he was a good lawyer, I cannot deny that.

Don Cardi

As I have said on a number of occasions in both this thread and others, I am fairly certain that OJ was guilty.

But here's the thing:

Given our criminal justice system, in which the prosecution has an enormous burden of proof, isn't it better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted?

Because if the standards for "reasonable doubt" and "burden of proof" weren't what they are, the government could simply bring criminal charges against anyone for any reason, and very likely obtain a conviction.

Given a government which has, at the very least, lied to us or misled us about some or all of the following: The murders of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King; The conduct of the war in Viet Nam; the Watergate affair; the Iran-Contra affair; the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor; the events leading up to 9/11 and its aftermath; the interrment of innocent Japanese civilians during WW II, etc., isn't it nice to know that the burden of proof in a criminal matter is such that the state can't use criminal charges as a political weapon?

Don't get me wrong here.....I'm not trying to paint a picture of the OJ trial as a political one. It was a straightforward criminal prosecution in which the jury, in all liklihood, got it wrong.

But I don't believe in criticizing a system or process unless I have a better alternative to offer. And until someone comes up with a better criminal justice system than the one we have, I'm perfectly willing to see guys like OJ go free every day without criticizing the system for letting it happen.

The system we have is designed to err on the side of caution and not convict people who may be innocent, and I'm very happy to keep it exactly that way.

Read the Dershowitz book. He makes a very compelling argument that based on the proof that was offered, the jury had no choice but to find OJ not guilty.

This is one of the few issues that I am pretty liberal on. People criticize some lawyers for defending clients that are obviousely guilty, and then getting them off. I firmly believe that every American is entitled to a fair trial regardless of the appearance of the truth.

I do think that OJ was guilty, and I am appauled by the verdict just as much as the next guy. But I only have admiration for the lawyer Johnny Cochran who has proved he is one of the best. It is the prosecution who should blamed.

Patrick

The guy did NOT make a negative post about him or talk bad about him, he even said that he thought that he was a good lawyer! So why are you, again, trying to start a controversy? Anyway, when were you made a moderator on this board? Don't be telling people where and when to post their opinions! You don't own this site!


Don Smitty