Join The Times' book club. This month's selection: "Cadillac Desert"
Opinion Opinion L.A.

The O.J. Simpson editorial I never wrote

I wanted to urge our readers to respect the Simpson jury's verdict
Acquittals are entitled to respect, even in a case like O.J. Simpson's

This week’s 20th anniversary of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman had lots of people excavating their memories. My most vivid recollection is not of the day of the killings but rather of Oct. 3, 1995, the day a jury acquitted O.J. Simpson. I was editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and expected to write the editorial about the verdict.

My intention was to urge our readers to respect the jurors’ decision, hard as that might be for some, and to remember that despite occasional miscarriages of justice, the jury system was the fairest mechanism devised to arrive at innocence or guilt.

But that position had the support of exactly one member of our editorial board: me. The rest of the board — and, more important, the editor-in-chief and the publisher — wanted not to reproach readers outraged over the acquittal but to express solidarity with them. My approach was rejected as bloodless and legalistic.

So I sat that one out, and one of my very talented colleagues wrote our Simpson editorial. It began: “At least the O.J. Simpson case was consistent. Conceived in tragedy, it was often farcical through its many numbing months. And so it ended — in a combination of farce and tragedy, with a hugely impatient jury accepting the defense’s invitation to be illogical. For a verdict like this, the phrase ‘travesty of justice’ was coined.”

And here’s my favorite quotation from the editorial: “The standard of judgment in criminal cases is supposed to be guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was unreasonable doubt that set O.J. Simpson free.”

The editorial criticized the largely African American jury for succumbing to “passions and prejudices,” though it also lashed LAPD Det. Mark Fuhrman. Fuhrman, my colleague wrote, was “a gift to the defense from heaven — or hell. Never mind that no conspirator would have had the knowledge, the time or the intelligence to frame O.J. Simpson and get away with it. The lying Fuhrman gave the defense its lurking figure in the shadows. It appears that no amount of evidence or cold logic could flush him out.”

Finally, the editorial offered the consolation that Simpson would face a reckoning elsewhere — not in Las Vegas but a civil courtroom and, later on, in the otherworldly tribunal where “divine judgment and retribution” are meted out.

It was a powerful and elegantly written piece, even a prophetic one.

But the idea of disparaging a jury verdict still bothers me. I’m not sure it began with the Simpson trial, but I have noticed in the years since a greater willingness on the part of the public, journalists and scholars to second-guess acquittals, even in cases — such as the trial of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin — in which the jury’s conclusion was more defensible than the Simpson jury’s. (Online, Zimmerman is frequently referred to as Martin’s “murderer.”)

I’m not arguing that jury verdicts are sacrosanct. If they were, a lot of wrongful convictions might go unexposed. But just as an acquittal (unlike a conviction) is final as a matter of law, it’s also deserving of deference from the court of public opinion — even in a “travesty” like the Simpson trial.

Follow Michael McGough on Twitter @MichaelMcGough3

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • RELATED: How my interview with O.J. almost ended in a fistfight

    How my interview with O.J. almost ended in a fistfight

    As 1993 wound down, Leo Wolinksy, then the Metro editor at The Times, asked me to put together a story that would take stock of the period we’d just been through: A few days earlier, a jury had delivered a mishmash of verdicts against those involved in the beating of Reginald O. Denny during the...

  • A specious argument for doing nothing on Patriot Act

     Many critics of the federal government’s collection of the telephone records of millions of Americans – the most troubling invasion of privacy revealed by Edward Snowden – are hopeful that the Senate will vote Sunday to end the program. It could do so by approving the grandiosely titled USA Freedom...

  • Seeing the movie 'San Andreas'? Drop, cover and laugh.

    Seeing the movie 'San Andreas'? Drop, cover and laugh.

    With the action movie “San Andreas” opening Friday, you’ve probably seen the trailer of buildings in downtown Los Angeles exploding apocalyptically. And you probably know that’s ridiculous.   Although I do get a kick out of seeing the letters in the Hollywood sign topple over like playing cards....

  • Want people to walk in L.A.? Then we need more crosswalks

    Want people to walk in L.A.? Then we need more crosswalks

    Contrary to popular belief, Los Angeles is not an auto-oriented city by design. It developed around a massive intra-urban rail network that resulted in many neighborhoods being laid out on a grid, with a mix of relatively dense housing types and thoroughfares lined with storefronts. These qualities,...

  • Charts: Comparing crosswalks in L.A. and San Francisco

    Charts: Comparing crosswalks in L.A. and San Francisco

  • Getting the blues from trying to watch Dodgers on Time Warner Cable

    Getting the blues from trying to watch Dodgers on Time Warner Cable

    My wife gave me Time Warner Cable as a retirement present so I could spend my golden years watching the Boys in Blue on TV. This makes me a lucky guy because 70% of Southern California doesn't get to watch the Dodgers on TV, at least until Charter Communications fulfills its promises. But nothing...

  • 'Strange' vs. 'simple old American' names

    'Strange' vs. 'simple old American' names

    Inflammatory Internet comments don't usually become news stories unto themselves. But a Duke University professor recently pulled off that trick. In response to a New York Times editorial about racism in Baltimore, Jerry Hough wrote that African Americans "just feel sorry for themselves" and compared...

  • Who's to blame when fake science gets published?

    Who's to blame when fake science gets published?

    The now-discredited study got headlines because it offered hope. It seemed to prove that our sense of empathy, our basic humanity, could overcome prejudice and bridge seemingly irreconcilable differences. It was heartwarming, and it was utter bunkum. The good news is that this particular case of...