Christopher Darden talks about O.J. trial on Charlie Rose (1 of 4)

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, projectsweatshop.

[AroundSun]

Darden told the jury that this was a tough case and he wouldn't want to be in their shoes. Basically telling them that it is a reasonable doubt case. He had a hand in losing this case.

[jazzzco]

@AroundSun I agree with you.

[SUNMAYDEN518]

i always liked darden

[trufflesrheaven]

OJ had money, and a star-struck jury, plain and simple! The prosecution had a solid case! OJ could've taken the stand and said "I did it", and the jury would've STILL found him innocent. VERY VERY SAD!

[211Jetsfan]

I feel better knowing oj is in jail for the vegas thing. The only reasons he got away with murder were the dream team, a weak judge, AND jury nullification.

[mjmitch33]

Him apologizing for being there was crazy. He should be putting the your here for a reason speech in play. The evidence was clear,the prosecution was not the best but you cannot get past blood was on the scene. Some of the samples had no sign of EDTA and some had only trace elements that are much less than what they would have been if it was reference blood. That proves he was the one.

[79Testo]

"WAS a prosecutor in Los Angeles" is the key word here!

he was no way ready for a case that size

[hoosierdaddyinsfca]

Chris is a hero!

[BobReidy]

Yes he is.

[writersblock26]

@hoosierdaddyinsfca Agreed.

[jamiec2789]

His summary argument is absolutely terrible. It is rambling and hard to follow.

"I would rather be somewhere else" WTF is he talking about?

[markusjj85]

@jamiec2789 Darden should've mentioned the individual aspects of the evidence rather than stating it as a whole.

[hoowansum]

how did this guy get to that case. It is the opposite of what he said. EVERYONE WOULD and SHOULD have wanted to be there. That jury was privilege to be on that jury. This was the most important case in american criminal history. He diminished the importance of the trail and everyone's role in the courtroom. I really think he may be an idiot.

[mikeyramone33]

darden was in contemt of the taxpayers of l.a. this asshole still thinks mark furman sunk this case! they had more evidence than any 10 murders.darden is still stuck on race he is totaly unqualified to serve in law in any capacity.period.

[RXGreg]

No prosecutor could have won that case. It was lost in jury selection. The prosecution ignored its own jury consultants. Jury nullification was inevitable.

[LegalEagle911]

@RXGreg Jury nullification did not play a facto in this case. You're trying to juxtapose the media presentation with what the jury heard from trial alone. This case did not fall on jury nullification, because jury nullification would indicate you know a murder happened but please forgive the murderer--that is not what the jury said at all. This case failed because of investigatory spoliation and improper use of novel DNA testing at the time. Bugliosi would have convicted Simpson!!

[trufflesrheaven]

@LegalEagle911 The prosecution had a SOLID case.. It has to do w/ OJ's money and fame and a star-struck jury. PERIOD!

[rkeppler3633]

Read Vincent Bugliosi's book Outrage on the trial. It was the most incompetently prosecuted murder case in history. With the defendants statement alone, Bugliosi could have put him away for life.

[RXGreg]

@rkeppler3633 This is the same author who thinks Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK.

[NINETYFIRSTANDTHIRD]

It isn't so much Darden's lack of emotion, as it is the way he worded it. For example, "I don't want to be here."

Why say that? Obviously you'd rather be playing golf or something, but yes, you do want to be there. You want to be there to allow justice to happen.

[11ASCT]

god that was a TERRIBLE closing speech

no wonder OJ won

[lauraleesmithagain]

I'm not involved in Law, but I didn't think it was a bad closing speech. It stuck to the facts. And he DOES say that Simpson IS A MURDERER. How is that different from saying he's guilty?

and to be honest- Even if he got up there and Said "OJ IS NOT GUILTY." based on the evidence only a moron could give him a non-guilty verdict. So his closing speech had nothing to do with it.

[kepler240]

I totally agree...damn, could he more boring? I mean, living up a little...show some force and excitment in your closing argument. The jurors were probably asleep listening to him. I'm getting sleepy just listening to him in this interview.

[11ASCT]

thanks, see what that nutcase above me wrote

she has no clue

Johnny C killed this dude

[jasondh22]

@kepler240 LOL. I was also just thinking that. YAWN.

[woodelfe]

@11ASCT I agree.. I think it was a terrible closing speech. Closing speeches are the last resort, last ditch effort to inflict as much influence as possible on the jury. However...i think that Darden's heart had left the case long before the closing speech was made. This interview alone is perfect proof that it had. If someone doesn't have the heart to put into a speech that critical, then its inevitable that the speech will lose its punch.

[11ASCT]

good point

[RXGreg]

@woodelfe Jury had made its decision far before the closing speech. They said as much after the trial.

[jasondh22]

@woodelfe I was just thinking that. Terrible closing speech.

[AroundSun]

damn this guy is soft, he hasn't said once that he IS GUILTY....He makes it look like a reasonable doubt case