Simpson Closing Arguments

Re “When Pain Explodes,” editorial, Sept. 29:

How patronizing of you to dismiss Fred Goldman’s outrage as the “overflow of pain.” How facile to justify Johnnie Cochran’s comments to the jury as simply “doing his job.”

While Goldman was undoubtedly feeling unimaginable pain, his outrage was justified by Cochran’s racially divisive behavior. For Cochran to equate a juror’s potential finding of O.J. Simpson’s guilt as complicity in a racist conspiracy by police is the worst sort of racial demagoguery and a blatant attempt to obfuscate the relevant facts of this case.

When an attorney of any ethnic background employs tactics that exploit and inflame the most basic racial fears of his audience, he should be roundly condemned by all right-thinking people. Cochran’s eloquent but incendiary hyperbole before a national audience has contributed more to the racial divisiveness of our community than the impotent and vile ranting of [former LAPD detective] Mark Fuhrman ever could.

KERRY S. HUNNEWELL

Los Angeles

*

* I must respond to your editorial. To say that Cochran’s closing argument was acceptable, despite gross insensitivity, because “that is his job” is to imply that even minimal standards of decency in the legal profession don’t exist. Such cynicism is unfair to lawyers, even defense lawyers, who do have integrity, and it trivializes the justified rage of the victims’ families.

RABBI EDWIN C. GOLDBERG

Sherman Oaks

*

* As an African American who has felt from the very beginning that Simpson was guilty as charged, I have felt just as strongly that he, like everyone else in this nation, is entitled to a fair and just trial to prove him guilty.

After the prosecution finished its summation I was even more certain of Simpson’s guilt. I still maintained an open mind until I heard the summation of the defense. It was the only fair and reasonable thing to do.

After hearing the powerful summation of Cochran, who systematically destroyed most of the key evidence presented by the prosecution point by point and with facts, not speculation, as was the case with the prosecution, I find it impossible to maintain my previously held views.

What puzzles me about the vitriolic outburst of the rightly aggrieved father, Fred Goldman, is the lack of rational thought. What does he presume that Cochran is supposed to do, proclaim his client is guilty and ignore all of the obvious discrepancies of the prosecution’s case? His anger would be better directed at the police and the prosecution for their sloppy work.

ROBERT W. WILLIAMS

Pasadena

*

* Simpson’s sisters are angry that everyone is attacking Cochran. “Why, he’s just doing his job.” They are absolutely right. And let us not forget his job--criminal attorney defending criminals. Too bad the only way he can do it is by tearing apart the LAPD, not a perfect police force but a pretty darn good one. I rest my case.

LINDA ELSTER

Los Angeles

*

* Until Marcia Clark uttered the first words of her closing statement (Sept. 27), I could have sworn that what seemed to be the light at the end of the tunnel regarding this trial was merely an express train bearing down on us full steam. And it’s a good thing it ended when it did.

The Dream Team focused attention away from its client and onto the police and FBI. Had the trial lasted any longer, Congress, the Boy Scouts and motherhood surely would have been next.

PAUL WASSERMAN

Northridge

*

* I am troubled by the fact that the prosecution in the O.J. Simpson case is calling a main witness a liar (under oath, which makes him a perjurer) and yet has taken no steps to remove his testimony.

I think they have an ethical duty to strike his testimony, and if that is not possible, then dismiss the case. That duty arose when they determined he had lied. By not doing so they question their own integrity, and that of all of their witnesses, in this and in future cases.

STANLEY R. SIEGEL

Oceanside

*

* I have heard several references to the “Trial of the Century,” which reflects a lack of knowledge of relatively recent history. The 1920s were full of particularly riveting events, including the Lindbergh kidnaping, the Scopes monkey trial, the Sacco and Vanzetti case and the juicy Daddy and Peaches Browning squabble.

There were also some fairly dramatic legal events in Nuremberg following World War II.

ROBERT L. SHARP

South Pasadena