Victim Advocates Upset By Verdict
Victims of domestic violence may be the ultimate losers in the O.J. Simpson murder case.
“I feel for the survivors of domestic violence in this country and the message this sends that justice is only available to the rich and powerful,” said Bill Douglas, Kootenai County prosecuting attorney. “I don’t think that’s the right message.”
Douglas rubbed his temples and shook his head in disbelief as he and his colleagues listened to the verdict in a tiny room in the basement of the Coeur d’Alene house that serves as the county prosecutor’s office. They collectively gasped as the words “not guilty” slid out of the TV speaker.
The not-guilty verdict shows how difficult it is to obtain murder and domestic violence convictions, Douglas said. A prosecutor is dealing with a crime where there often are no witnesses, and has the challenge of crushing stereotypes about circumstantial evidence, premeditation and domestic violence.
“There’s too many people in this country that still believe because someone is married to somebody or a boyfriend to somebody, they are fair game,” Douglas said.
Deputy Prosecutor Joel Hazel worried aloud that the verdict will discourage domestic violence victims from pressing charges. “A lot of them are reluctant to come forward anyway,” he said.
“There’s absolutely no closure for the victims and that’s going to be painful for a long time,” added Deputy Prosecutor Rick Baughman. “It’s a sad day in American jurisprudence.”
The prosecutors weren’t ready to second-guess Los Angeles District Attorney Marcia Clark and her staff. Rather, they talked about Judge Lance Ito not controlling the trial. For example, he allowed a defense attorney to cross-examine a prosecution witness for nine days.
Ex-Los Angeles police officer Mark Fuhrman was a problem, prosecutors agreed. He gave credence to the defense allegation that “something untoward was going on,” Hazel said. “It gave the defense the ability to play the moral high ground.”
The case fell apart, not in the courtroom, but in the jury room, they reasoned.
“The emotions surrounding the case were stronger to the jury than the evidence,” Baughman said.
By relying upon emotion instead of common sense to judge the case, the jury was expecting prosecutors to prove Simpson guilty beyond all doubt, Douglas added. The normal standard is guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Still, the not guilty verdict “doesn’t mean he didn’t do it,” Douglas said.
By the time the television cameras faded from the courtroom to the endless follow-up interviews, Douglas was less shocked by the verdict than he was his own surprise at the verdict.
“I shouldn’t have been,” Douglas said.
“This case had more to do with a Hollywood production than it did with the administration of justice.”
Spokane County Prosecutor Jim Sweetser, conversely, wasn’t prepared to second-guess the verdict.
“The jury system is the best system in the world to determine if a person is guilty or not guilty,” he said.
At the same time, Sweetser worries about possible fallout.
“I’d hate to see this verdict affect the credibility of law enforcement,” he said.
, DataTimes