OnlineHost: Copyright 1995 Court TV; licensed to America Online, Inc.
OnlineHost: Your emcee for this event is CSEmcee3 (LouMD).
CSEmcee3: Welcome Mr. Moran to Center Stage. We are delighted to have you as our guest this evening.
CourtTV: Thanks. Good to be here.
CSEmcee3: I am sure people have a lot of questions to ask you about the trial.
Question: Will OJ be able to return to the work he was doing before the trial?
CourtTV: That is up to consumers and advertisers. I think not.
Question: Was it really a fair trial!
CourtTV: Yes. You saw a ferocious fight between two views of the evidence. That's fair. That's the system. In the end, the government failed to prove its case to the people *it* helped put on that jury. So, it was a fair trial. If anything, Judge Ito could have let in more for the defense -more Fuhrman tapes, etc.
Question: Was the verdict, given so fast, just so they could go home?
CourtTV: No. The verdict was fast because one side - the state - had no credibility with the jury by the end of the trial. Any lawyer will tell you, a fast verdict means you lost the case a long time ago. The awful sequestration just crystallized that quickly.
Question: Do you think that the jury in the Simpson trial forgot about the victims, and concerned themselves more with corruption in the LAPD.
CourtTV: Good question. Obviously, we have to find out from jurors. But I think the jury in the end followed the law: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These 12 people did not find it, and while that might mean an injustice for the victims (or might not) that's the price of liberty. We just rarely see the price tag.
Question: How accurate was OJ's statement on Larry King last night?
CourtTV: If you mean his statement about Allan Park seeing him outside depositing his luggage, I don't have the slightest idea. A prosecutor cross-examining might well want to ask "Why would you take your luggage outside, *then* turn on the lights in your home?"
Question: If there is some proof of "no deliberation" or presupposed opinions, or an nonverbal coercion from the "community", would the federal laws allow a retrial?
CourtTV: Almost certainly not. Besides, in our system, we want jurors to bring in all their life experiences community on, say, police credibility.
Comment: Do you think the public's interest in this event will ever wane?
CourtTV: Yes. Soon.
Question: What was the total cost to OJ for his defense?
CourtTV: Good question. The last estimate I heard was $5 million. Worth every last cent.
Question: What do you think of the juror that said domestic violence was not an issue?
CourtTV: Showed how poorly the state presented this evidence. They led with it, then they abandoned it for months, and in closing arguments sought once again to make it a centerpiece of their case. Jurors do not like that. Personally, I found that evidence very, very sad, but the state did not follow through with it.
Question: How many different stories has OJ given about where he was between 10 and 11 p.m.?
CourtTV: The only one that counts is where he wasn't - at Bundy. He told the cops he overslept; he told Allan Park he was in the shower; Cochran told the jury he was chipping golf balls; we know he made a call from his Bronco. In the end, the jury did not buy the state's time line.
Question: But did they find reasonable doubt because of racial bias and not the evidence?
CourtTV: I don't think so. The government did not prove its case to these 12 jurors. Period. If you have jurors who, for whatever reason, do not have a lot of confidence in your evidence, do not have a lot of confidence in your witnesses - you've got a problem. And this case has shown that many citizens in Los Angeles do not have sufficient confidence in the police so that, when some police witnesses are shown to lie, they can nevertheless go ahead and convict. That's not racial bias; that's life experience. And it's reasonable.
Question: Will there be changes in the LAPD or District Attorney's Office as a result of the verdict?
CourtTV: There have got to be and not just in LA. The system has to work and has to be seen to work for all citizens if you want justice.
Comment: Given the loss of credibility the LAPD suffered, wouldn't it have been prudent of the prosecution in the closing arguments to invite the jury to ignore any and all evidence that the LAPD had any control over, and ask them to focus on the remainder only?
CourtTV: Not much left after that, it seems to me. Clark did have to begin her summation by admitting that one of her witness had lied and was a racist. Think about how much that's got to damage a lawyer's credibility. You don't even have to factor in race. Game over.
CSEmcee3: Here is a comment:
Comment: I don't think that OJ Simpson has the slightest clue about what mental pain he could inflict on his children later in life.
CourtTV: Prayer may be the only response to that situation.
Question: When will the civil suit come to court?
CourtTV: Not for a long, long time. Two years to five years, maybe longer.
Question: In the civil suit that has been filed will OJ, Kardashian, and AC Cowlings have to testify?
CourtTV: Yes. And no. Simpson can be forced to testify and face cross-examination in a civil suit. But Kardashian and Cowlings may still take the Fifth, if they choose.
CSEmcee3: Here is another comment.
Comment: I feel that the people that are angry with the verdict saying that the trial was racially biased, concerned themselves too much with what was said and not with the lack of credible evidence.
CourtTV: One of the things this jury has done is teach us all a lesson in reasonable doubt. Think about it. The police lied; a rookie and an incompetent criminalist collected evidence; the lead detective is wandering around L.A. for a day with the defendants' blood; the prosecution changes its time line from opening statement to summation; and the gloves don't fit. Now, if you were on trial, wouldn't you hope that a jury might find some reasonable doubt in there somewhere?
Question: What basis is there for a wrongful death suit when he's been acquitted?
CourtTV: Different claims altogether. Civil claims are private disputes; criminal cases are the community accusing a citizen. Different burden of proof: Beyond a reasonable doubt versus preponderance of the evidence. We've covered cases like this on Court TV - after an acquittal. They're interesting. If you thought OJ killed your kid, you'd sue too.
Question: Is it really true what has been said of Shapiro, that his conscious is troubling him?
CourtTV: Only Shapiro knows. Either he is troubled by the tack the defense took, or his ego has been bruised by being shown up by Cochran, or he can't get the good table at Eclipse any more and he's trying to make amends. I don't know.
Question: Comments from the juror's sure seem to be racial, am I mistaken?
CourtTV: I don't think so. The jurors I've heard seem to be saying the government did not prove its case. Now, if I were on the jury, I might have been able to overlook some of the prosecution's problems, but these citizens could not. That's OK. And that's not racial, I think.
Question: Is there any chance that the LAPD will conduct further investigations as to the murders?
CourtTV: Very very little, I think. The LAPD thinks it already got its man. And think about it: If there were another killer, no hair, no fiber, no fingerprint, no blood, no footprint, nothing was left behind - all the physical evidence pointed to Simpson.
Question: Why is the defense being investigated?
CourtTV: My understanding is that the California Bar Association is looking into allegations of misconduct in the Simpson case. They have not specified the defense; they may look at the prosecution, too. I think it's a lot of nothing.
Question: Do you think the jury was "rooting" for Johnny and OJ against "the man" and Marcia?
CourtTV: Cochran was superb. He should be ranked with Darrow and the other great trial lawyers in our history. And jurors have to like a defense lawyer. But they don't have to like a prosecutor; just her evidence.
Question: Did OJ ask for his gloves and hat back after he was acquitted?
CourtTV: Har har har.
Question: Do you think that a black majority jury cost the prosecution the case?
CourtTV: No. I think a lying racist cop, an incompetent criminalist, a sloppy lab, and a fearful prosecution cost the case. The gloves, too. The fact that there were blacks on the jury just means that the government must *earn* their trust in court. They did not.
Question: Are the prosecutors going to harass the jurors by targeting them with traffic tickets and petty charges in retaliation for acquitting Simpson?
CourtTV: Absolutely not. They should thank the jurors for forcing change in the system.
Question: Do you think he will commit himself to finding the killer or killers?
CourtTV: Sure. If they exist.
Question: Why was the venue of downtown LA chosen by the DA, instead of in Brentwood?
CourtTV: Two reasons: Security; a "long-cause" case like this one with all the media and security problems is appropriately handled at the main courthouse. And control; Gil was upstairs.
Question: Did you have an idea that the jury would come back not guilty by watching their behavior each day in the courtroom?
CourtTV: I was only in the courtroom for a few days during Fuhrman. I gave up a long, long time ago trying to figure juries out. I am always wrong.
CSEmcee3: We have time for one more question.
Question: Reports today say Shapiro's suggested plea bargain involved a five-year sentence for Robert Kardashian, "custodian" of the mystery suitcase. (This was F. Lee Bailey's charge.) and manslaughter for Simpson. How did this evidence get away -- the bag?
CourtTV: Bailey may be blowing smoke - be careful here. My understanding is that as the blood tests were coming back so badly for Simpson, Shapiro considered options. But it would be unethical for him to propose what Bailey says, which is probably why Bailey says it. We will never ever know what happened with that bag.
OnlineHost: All good things must end. We've run out of time for this event.
CSEmcee3: Mr. Moran, thanks for being here tonight to answer all our questions.
CourtTV: Thanks for having me.
CSEmcee3: This of course has been most interesting in light of all the publicity this week. Thanks to our audience for their good questions.
CSEmcee3: Goodnight, Everyone!
OnlineHost: Copyright 1995 Court TV; licensed to America Online, Inc.
