If O.J. had been found guilty, what grounds for appeal did he have & could he have won?

We all know that O.J. Simpson was found not guilty. In an alternate universe where the entire trial was exactly the same--all the evidence, exhibits, testimony, rulings, et cetera--but where O.J. was found guilty, what would his best grounds for appeal have been? Surely his "Dream Team" of lawyers was thinking about this during the trial...

What would he have appealed? How likely is it that he could have had the conviction set aside? What else may have happened? (And what was the likely sentence that'd have been imposed?)

in Ask_Lawyersby Jacob1207a

76%

19d

EWC_2015

NY - Criminal

19d

The #1 ruling that comes to mind is the amount of prior domestic violence evidence that was allowed in. He was charged with a single incident, the murder, but the prosecution was allowed to elicit numerous prior instances of domestic violence. Arguably, had he been convicted, the defense could argue that the evidence led the jury to believe he had a propensity to be violent, so he "must" have done this too.

corpusdelictus1

19d

Doesn’t California allow prior acts of DV in a trial where the charges crime falls under the DV umbrella? I believe it’s evidence code 1108 or 1109. Pretty sure murder of former or current spouse is DV.

-tripleu

CA/AZ - Army JAG

18d

Evidence Code 1109 was enacted after OJ’s trial in response to his acquittal.

I remember this when studying for the California bar. The bar prep company said to remember it as “the OJ code” or something like that.

EWC_2015

NY - Criminal

18d

^ Or this, lol. I didn't check to see when it was enacted. A similar dynamic is currently playing out in the NY legislature after Weinstein's conviction was overturned.

EWC_2015

NY - Criminal

18d

As you can see from my flair, I don't practice in CA so I am not an expert on what the law says there. Here in NY, said evidence could be admissible under what is called our "Molineux rule," but it has to meet certain exceptions and its probative value has to outweigh its prejudicial effect (see the recent Weinstein decision where his conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeals, which is our highest appellate court). While it was a politically unpopular opinion, I don't fault the justices for reaching that conclusion because the trial court let in A LOT of Molineux evidence.

I looked up what you cited (it's section 1109), and I can see there's a general 10-year limit on such evidence built into 1109 unless an "interest of justice" exception is met. I also see that it specifically intersects with section 1101, which reads similarly to the rule here in NY in that the prosecution can't use evidence of a prior crime or bad act just to prove your predisposition to commit the instant offense.

Either way, there was argument over this at the OJ trial, so I'd imagine it wasn't a given that such evidence was admissible.

Malvania

TX IP Lawyer

19d

My recollection was that there was a lot about one of the detectives planting evidence or something like that. There could have been a fruit of the poisonous tree issue. Also, OJ's DNA may have broken chain of evidence when a detective took it to OJ's house rather than enter it into evidence, and there were some other issues with the evidence collection. There might have been some things there that should have been thrown out and could be reversed on appeal.

ADADummy

NY - Criminal Appellate

19d

I can't imagine an appellate court in the 90s or 00s reversing, iT eXpLaINs tHe NaTuRe oF tHe ReLaTiOnShIp.

seditious3

NY - Criminal Defense

18d

I will say that trial may be the most poorly-managed I've ever seen. Judge Ito let it become a circus and allowed both sides, especially the defense, way too much leeway. It should never have been televised.

AutoModerator

19d

REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice.

Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See here , here , and here . If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please read this or see the sidebar for more information.

This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1 missing reply