Defense Plays Race Card Simpson Attorney Tells Jury To Repudiate Racist Cover-Up
Racism, the demon lurking in the dark corners of the O.J. Simpson case since the day it began, flared into the light Thursday as attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr. implored a primarily black jury to repudiate prejudice in America by finding his client not guilty.
Summoning images of Adolf Hitler, ethnic cleansing, genocidal police detectives and a righteous God, Cochran told jurors that they alone could put an end to what the defense has portrayed as an immense official conspiracy to frame Simpson and then hide the evidence of the plot.
“Stop this cover-up! Stop this cover-up!” Cochran boomed, his voice rising in anger. “If you don’t stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the DA’s office is going to stop it? It has to be stopped by you.”
Cochran gave the jury a masterfully dramatic performance as he closed his final argument, ending a two-day presentation with a list of 15 pointed questions about evidence in the case - each of which, he insisted, raised a reasonable doubt about the case against Simpson.
He clearly intended that the questions should still be ringing in jurors’ ears when they finally get the case today - 368 days after the first potential jurors were questioned for service. Prosecutor Marcia Clark will get one last crack at a final rebuttal Friday morning, and then, Judge Lance Ito told jurors, they will prepare to begin deliberations Monday.
But Clark is faced with a monumental task. Effectively she will be faced with calming the intense racial emotions stirred up by Cochran and refocusing the case on the “mountain of evidence” she has repeatedly said proves Simpson’s guilt.
At times cajoling and at times preaching, Cochran tried to persuade jurors that it was impossible to separate the larger problem of racism in the United States from the particular conduct of the police and prosecutors in the Simpson case.
Focusing on the racist attitudes of former Los Angeles police detective Mark Fuhrman, Cochran appealed directly to the personal experiences of the nine African Americans on the jury, suggesting that, like him, they had suffered the sting of racism.
“I live in America. I understand. I live with (racial) slights every day of my life,” Cochran said, nodding knowingly to the jury.
White members of the jury, he then suggested, might have only just learned about the workings of racism through the events surrounding the Simpson murder case.
“But some of you (now) are finding out about the other side of life,” he said. “… You and I, fighting for freedom and ideals and for justice for all, must continue to expose hate and genocidal racism. We, then, become the guardians of the Constitution.”
Not only did Cochran invoke lofty references to the Constitution to impress the jurors with the weighty task before them, he even suggested that the hand of fate had led them to this trial and the decision they will make regarding Simpson’s guilt or innocence.
“Maybe there is a reason why we’re here,” he said softly, adopting an intimate tone with the jury. “Maybe you’re the right people at the right time at the right place to say: ‘No more!”’
Cochran minced no words when demonstrating what can happen when racism and power mix, by equating Fuhrman’s racism and his power as a police officer with the power and racism of Hitler.
“There is no one more powerful than a patrol officer,” Cochran said. “He can take your life. He can do it right there and justify it. This man (Fuhrman) had the power to carry out his racist views.”
Jurors appeared to lock onto Cochran’s fiery speech. Several betrayed openly pained expressions, although it was unclear, as always, what they might have been thinking.
No such doubts, however, attached to the reaction that erupted outside the courtroom, across a city that has been plagued by racial tensions since the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
Within minutes of Cochran’s remarks, victim Ronald Goldman’s father, Fred, exploded in fury before live television cameras, sputtering with rage as he denounced the famed defense attorney.
Shortly after Goldman’s outburst, Simpson’s family responded by breaking months of silence to defend Cochran before reporters.
There were also signs that Goldman’s comments had angered some in Los Angeles who hold Cochran in high regard.
“People ignored it (the trial) before because you had a high-priced millionaire married to a white woman,” said Harry Warren, a director of the Community Youth Gang Services Project in south-central Los Angeles.
“But Mr. Goldman - and I sympathize with the man, he lost a son he will never see again - just can’t get up there and talk like that about Johnnie Cochran,” he said. “This man is a role model.”
Some legal experts suggested that Cochran’s comments could have an explosive effect in race-conscious Los Angeles.
“His remarks run the risk of opening whatever scar tissue may have begun to seal the wounds of racial prejudice opened in Los Angeles in the last three years,” said Robert Pugsley, of the Southwestern University School of Law.
But some African-American leaders suggested that Cochran’s courtroom rhetoric would have unmistakable resonance in the black community.
“Much of what was said I could relate to,” said Geraldine Washington, president of the Los Angeles branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
“We live in a country that’s not perfect. We love this country, but realistically we realize racism still exists. We’re confronted with it not just today but all of our lives. There is a possibility that Mark Fuhrman could have planted evidence based on what we now know about him,” she said.
There were even anxious words about the day’s events from President Clinton.
“I am concerned about it, and I hope that the American people will not let this become a symbol of the larger racial issue in our country,” Clinton said in Washington.
Meanwhile, jury experts suggested that Cochran’s foray into the racial implications of the Simpson case could work either way for the defendant.
Dennis Brooks, president of American Society of Trial Consultants, said many jurors see through appeals to racial feelings, though members of minority groups are often the most responsive to such arguments.
“When you’re playing on the racial chords, most jurors see that for what it is, being racist itself,” Brooks said.
“If it is heavy-handed, then they’re incensed by it. However, it works better with minorities than it does with whites. They find it very believable, based on firsthand experience.”