Poll of the Day > I'm watching S1E5 of the OJ Simpson thing on Netflix, can someone explain this

(+) Yeah! (+)

Theres a scene where Johnnie Cochran reads his opening statement and says idk why the other side havent brought in these witness who could exonerate OJ. Witnesses including ms Lopez and mr whatever.

and then the prosecution lawyer interrupts him and says idk what this is all about and loses his mind over Cochrans statement about the witnesses. Your honour these witnesses have not been turned over to the people

Can someone explain this scene to me? I literally have no clue what either of these lawyers are talking about

---

Oh God there's an oj series now? I remember that shit being on TV and my family nevvvver stopped watching it. So boring as a kid. And I remember seeing the bronco chase on TV too and as kid youre just kinda sitting there and like who the heck is oj simpson

You can't have "trial by surprise". Both sides know what all of the evidence is, and who all the witnesses are, and all of this is agreed upon by the prosecution, defense and judge before the trial begins.

---

They show likes to favor emotion and storytelling over actual facts, but I usually didnt mind it.

I dont remember this particular case, but I do remember being frustrated / confused about some of the courtroom stuff.

I think were meant to feel frustrated though, because the real trial was a fucking shit show of a joke, and Johnny Cochran would constantly shout out random shit so fast that nobody would have a chance to argue it or second guess it. And there was a lot of people eating it up

---

papercup posted...

You can't have "trial by surprise". Both sides know what all of the evidence is, and who all the witnesses are, and all of this is agreed upon by the prosecution, defense and judge before the trial begins.

so both sides agree on the evidence to be presented and the witnesses to be brought in beforehand? As in before opening statements

So when one side says oh surprise weve got like four witnesses that nobodys heard about, thats the issue? Because this should all have been agreed before?

---

FatalAccident posted...

so both sides agree on the evidence to be presented and the witnesses to be brought in beforehand? As in before opening statements

So when one side says oh surprise weve got like four witnesses that nobodys heard about, thats the issue? Because this should all have been agreed before?

Yep! I think it's actually illegal to present surprise witnesses? Might not be, but it's seen in very bad taste, and can throw an entire trial in jeopardy of being thrown out. Both sides know everything the other side knows.

---

FrozenBananas posted...

Johnny Cochran would constantly shout out random shit so fast that nobody would have a chance to argue it or second guess it. And there was a lot of people eating it up

Hence where South Park got the idea for "The Chewbacca Defense".
---

papercup posted...

You can't have "trial by surprise". Both sides know what all of the evidence is, and who all the witnesses are, and all of this is agreed upon by the prosecution, defense and judge before the trial begins.

This.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Hence where South Park got the idea for "The Chewbacca Defense".

I'm intrigued.

---

Both sides need time to investigate the legitimacy of any evidence or statements from witnesses.


---

Okay, so can someone tell me about the interview that OJ did afterwards with his publisher before putting out his book?

It was basically an interview where he recounted the whole story and basically confessed to doing it.

Because of double jeopardy, can you literally get acquitted of double homicide, and then come out later and say actually I did it with no legal consequences whatsoever?

---

unfortunately, yes

he wouldn't be able to be tried for whatever he was tried for the first time

but admitting it would also open him up to a slew of other things he could be tried for, mainly because actually trying to repeal the double jeopardy thing would require repealing an amendment to the constitution, since it's the fuckin fifth amendment for some dumbass reason, and THEN it was made even stronger in the 14th amendment

---

papercup posted...

Yep! I think it's actually illegal to present surprise witnesses? Might not be, but it's seen in very bad taste, and can throw an entire trial in jeopardy of being thrown out. Both sides know everything the other side knows.

I dunno. To me that sounds like not allowing witnesses who have suffered abuses in the past to come forward, like with Bill Cosbys case. If theyre a witness, theyre a witness. Thats a dumb law or rule. As a matter of fact, when new evidence is found, it can lead to the person being tried getting a new trial if theyve been convicted of their charges.

---

Anyways, if they dont talk about how hes straight guilty for the deaths of two people, then I wouldnt even bother watching it.

---

Zeus posted...

I'm intrigued.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV6NoNkDGsU
---