The O.J. Simpson Card

New America Media, Commentary, Earl Ofari Hutchinson Posted: Jul 11, 2007

Editorís Note: The O.J. Simpson case still reverberates in the American justice system when it comes to race, notes NAM Associate Editor Earl Ofari Hutchinson. His book, ďThe Latino Challenge to Black America: Towards a Conversation between African-Americans and HispanicsĒ (Middle Passage Press and Hispanic Economics New York) will be out in October.

The moment the mostly black jury acquitted O.J. Simpson in 1996 a leading Simpson trial commentator pithily quipped that blacks would catch hell for that verdict. He didnít spell out exactly how theyíd pay for the acquittal, but the point was that the Simpson verdict so enraged police, prosecutors, judges and many whites that they would throw the book at any black that wound up in a court docket.

The quip seemed like over the top hyperbole at the time.

But a decade later attorneys for convicted murderer Allen Snyder, an African American, say that itís no exaggeration. They have asked the Supreme Court to toss Snyderís conviction in Louisiana.

Supposedly prosecutors played the Simpson race card when they told jurors that a defendant in a famed murder case got away with the murders. Though prosecutors didnít name Simpson directly, they mentioned the Ford Bronco, the famed slow chase and the historic notoriety of the case. It didnít take much for the all-white jury to connect the dots and figure that Simpson was the defendant in question.

The Supreme Court will review the case this fall.

Whether the court buys Snyderís claim that he was a victim of Simpsonitis, or not, and thatís a tough one to prove based solely on a prosecutorís off the cuff crack to a jury, thereís no doubt that Simpsonís acquittal did send a jolt through the criminal justice system.

In countless interviews, police officials, judges and prosecutors expressed their dismay at the verdict. Even then-President Bill Clinton caught the angry public mood when he asked Americans simply to respect the verdict and then quickly urged them to show sympathy for the victims.

In the decade since the acquittal, that angry public mood on crime has translated into waves of tough new laws and bulging prisons. The year that Simpson was acquitted, Americaís jail population stood at about a half million. A decade later it has soared past 2 million, and the numbers show no sign of leveling off. Blacks make up nearly half of Americaís inmates.

In their Supreme Court challenge, Snyderís attorneys didnít stop at reaching at Simpson as the cause for his conviction. They also zeroed in on the all-white jury that convicted him. It was the mostly black jury who acquitted Simpson that set off howls that black jurors let Simpson walk because he was black. That sent up red flags among prosecutors. Though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that prosecutors canít bump blacks from juries solely because of race, when the defendant is black prosecutors have found creative ways to limit their number if not eliminate them entirely from the jury.

The Dallas Morning News revealed in 2006 that Dallas prosecutors systematically dumped blacks from juries for years. The Supreme Court tossed the conviction of Texas death row inmate Thomas Miller-El based on a Dallas prosecutorís brazen racial jury sanitizing. Yet prosecutors still try to get as many whites, and as few blacks as possible, on juries. The thinking is that whites are more pro-prosecution than blacks. They arenít totally wrong.

A 10-year study by the Capital Jury Project on juror racial attitudes in which more than 1000 jurors were interviewed in 14 states found that white jurors were far more willing to believe the testimony of police and prosecution witnesses than the testimony of black defendants and witnesses. Countless other studies have also shown that white jurors are more prone to convict black than white defendants. If the defendant is black, and the victim is white, the likelihood is greater still of a conviction.

Courts have consistently ruled that any explanation that a prosecutor gives for eliminating a prospective black juror that appears to be race-neutral is acceptable. There is no constitutional requirement that the prosecutorís explanation be reasonable or even make sense. There is no enforcement mechanism to insure that in the blatant instances where blacks are struck from juries that race wasnít the real motive. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the need to have jury diversity. But it has done little to clarify how to measure diversity, or how to attain it. It uses the vague and ambiguous standard that a jury must be representative of a fair cross section of the community.

That puts the burden on defense attorneys to prove that prosecutors manipulated jury selection to exclude blacks from a jury. A defense attorney must do an exhaustive population study to show that whites are overrepresented on a jury, and blacks are underrepresented. They must also show that the paucity of blacks in a jury pool is due to deliberate and systematic exclusion by prosecutors. Thatís nearly impossible to prove.

Snyder probably wonít have much better luck in proving that potential jurors in his trial were bumped because they were black either. But his legal challenge, and the Supreme Courtís willingness to take it up, puts Simpson back in the news with all the ugly implications that his case had and still has on crime and punishment in America.


Page 1 of 1

Share/Save/Bookmark

User Comments


Dave Luckens on Jul 17, 2007 at 17:20:46 said:

today,the state of ga,stepped away from executing an innocent black man named troy davis.this despite all the hurdles laid down by a judicial system which appears to be obsessively racist.i will never forget watching the quiet dignity and noble bearing of martina correia,the condemned man's sister,who was interviewed by amy goodman,just before going in to the parole and pardons hearing.she was the true southern aristocrat,the real life person,that ruby dee,or ceci tyson would portray in the movies.


Charles Francis on Jul 16, 2007 at 15:03:32 said:

Since the OJ trial, I wonder if there has been a tendency to keep Japanese-Americans off the judicial bench?


Dr. Robert Zimmerman on Jul 16, 2007 at 13:53:07 said:

The O.J. Simpson Card is a racist thesis about racism. There is no justice in the USA for non-white citizens; there is no justice in the USA for poor people.

Are we angry about the make up of the court?


Virginia Harris on Jul 16, 2007 at 13:53:07 said:

So, what else is new?


Lance Miller on Jul 16, 2007 at 11:36:42 said:

The Simpson trial was a chance for blacks (the jurors) to exhibit color blindness, but chose racial solidarity instead.

Racial solidarity is an immoral act in the dispensing of justice.

A wise general public will remember this for a long time.

-->




Advertisement


ADVERTISEMENT


Just Posted

NAM Coverage

Criminal Justice

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertisements on our website do not necessarily reflect the views or mission of New America Media, our affiliates or our funders.