MovieChat Forums > O.J.: Made in America (2016) Discussion > The Two Jurors

The Two Jurors

posted 7 years ago by howler19
11 replies | jump to latest

I thought one of the many interesting things in this film was the two jurors they interviewed. Even though they came to the same conclusion, there was a stark contrast in their ability to apply reason.

We had the younger woman who made some good points about the defense's ability to create doubt because the case had been mishandled. I'm not sure if that should have been enough given all the signs that pointed toward O.J. but her way of reasoning made me respect her opinion.

Then there was that older lady who couldn't piece a sentence together. She made a murder case into something about revenge and made herself look like just as much of a racist as Fuhrman in doing so.

Just goes to show you that there's smart and dumb ways to the same conclusion.

[–] mzlove 7 years ago

I didn't think the younger juror sounded any smarter, to be honest. She sounded racist as heck, judging Darden for his motives, and fawning over Cochran. She came off as easily manipulated by a lawyer who acted like a pimp.

It's pretty obvious neither of the two women (and based on the statements of the older juror, several other jurors) based their decision on the facts of the case, rather their own emotions and feelings in response to the Rodney King verdict. Had this same trial taken place a year earlier, I believe the outcome would have been guilty.

[–] snowleopard 7 years ago

I have to agree with you. Just because she was more articulate, doesn't excuse her reasoning, or lack there of, in her decision making in ignoring compelling scientific evidence.

[–] howler19 7 years ago

Maybe the younger juror had other motives as well like most of them seemed too, but she at least had the sense to bring up some valid points along with them, because there were some.

Let's remember that as a juror you're not supposed to sit there and vote what you think happened. If that was the case no one could have freed O.J. with a straight face. You're supposed to evaluate if they are proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and only take evidence into account that has not been discredited. That is something entirely different and makes this case a lot more difficult than people understand. Everyone thinks O.J. was guilty, but was it actually proven? I'm not sure it was, and that's on the prosecution and not the jury.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 7 years ago

Both of them were ass holes, and probably mentally challenged. The entire jury was of sub par intelligence, however that is not why they came with a not guilty verdict.

[–] daughterofolaf 7 years ago

I thought they both sounded pretty stupid--and not only stupid but flat out scary. We have the younger one who knows he did it but decided she couldn't convict because of errors the prosecution made--even though those errors did not genuinely affect her opinion. And then we have the old lady who more or less said she knew he did it but Nicole deserved it for staying with an abuser for so long and then went on to clearly state that she and "90 percent" of the other jurors knew he was guilty but didn't convict as a way to exact revenge/payback for unrelated racial injustices. What a despicable, awful person. I realize some of that could be editing but if we are taking it at face value then that's what her view was.

"Your petty vengeance fetish will have to do withOUT Mr. Groin!"

[–] Fairy_snuff (389) 7 years ago

That shocked me too when she said she had no sympathy for a woman who stayed with an abuser, especially as Nicole had left OJ (not that it should matter anyway, she still didn't deserve to be murdered).

That said, although I'm sure OJ did it, I think the police did an absolutely terrible job at collecting evidence and they are the reason he got off, the lawyers did create reasonable doubt.

[–] MoviesStillSuck (275) 2 months ago

Yes, “despicable” is indeed the word. These jurors were fools at best and monsters at worst. Shame on all of them.

[–] Mint Berry Crunch (345) 7 years ago

They violated the juror's oath and should be in prison for that. They ignored evidence that wasn't tainted and made a blanket judgment based on prejudice. That's the EXACT opposite of what they were sequestered to do. If Ito wasn't such a cuck and useless idiot, that never would have happened.

[–] Stratego (29295) 7 years ago

Despicable creatures, just like the rest of the jurors.

[–] MrPurple (9) 6 years ago

I at least respected the older juror for her honesty and saying that the verdict was Rodney King payback. Remember, they're being interviewed now, when there's no question that O.J. is guilty. I agree that it was obvious in 1995 too, but the documentary said that 77% of African Americans thought he was not guilty at the time. Their history with bad cops, especially in L.A. and Mark Fuhrman taking the 5th on the stand as to whether he planted evidence against OJ was enough to create reasonable doubt.

Yeah, they were easily manipulated, but they were in isolation in that courtroom with no outside information and the legal dream team did a great job of sowing doubt. Looking back, this case wasn't about black and white as much as green. There are other cases of guilty people with high power lawyers outplaying the prosecutors and getting off. O.J. was just the first high profile black guy to be in that position.

[–] ace2 (544) 5 years ago

Agreed. I was quite impressed by the younger juror. Her point was clear: the prosecution made many missteps and unforced errors. Remember the burden of proof was on them... and in her mind they failed.

The older juror was just embarrassing. However the whole idea of being judged by peers has its flaws.