Week Six, Part 1 - Dream Team

With its 100-plus days of televised courtroom testimony, the murder trial of O.J. Simpson dominates the media. Robert Shapiro. Johnnie Cochran. F. Lee Bailey. Barry Scheck. Alan Dershowitz. How many defense attorneys does one defendant need, I wonder.

To my surprise, however, there’s been no substantive analysis of the case in any of my classes at Notre Dame Law School.

In Criminal Procedure, the class where I would expect regular discussion of the “Trial of the Century,” Professor Dutile steers clear. The brief exception is when Simpson waives his right to testify. Dutile reads us Simpson’s statement to the court: “‘They [the jury] will find as the record stands now, that I did not, could not and would not have committed this crime.’”

Dutile wonders, “Hmm, what’s he really saying?”

Good point, I think. If the record were different, would O.J. admit to the crime?


In Contracts class, the day after both the Simpson prosecution and defense have rested their cases, Professor Kaveny takes the first 15 minutes to ask us a series of questions.

• Do you think there’s enough evidence to convict O.J.?
• Why wasn't there more blood around him?
• Don’t you find it hard to believe that somebody could kill the mother of their children?
• If you have fundamentally different views on police behavior, are you going to have a different level of plausibility?
• Do you think the Simpson trial reflects somehow on lawyers?
• If you knew Detective Fuhrman was racist, would you still put him on the stand? Is this an ethical issue as well as strategic one?

Our answers are prosaic, rehash of the talking heads we hear on the news. Kaveny suggests that people might view O.J. and the trial the same way they look at Elizabeth Taylor and marriage: "Oh, well, that's Hollywood."

She asks how many think Simpson will be found guilty. Half the students, about 25 of us, raise our hands. Only a handful vote not guilty. Kaveny predicts a hung jury.


Dean David Link has an article published in the Op-Ed section of the Chicago Tribune, titled “Law schools must lead legal profession back to its roots.” I read a photocopy of it at the 1L bulletin board.

Link begins, “Whatever the outcome of the O.J. Simpson murder trial, one thing seems certain: Contempt for lawyers – be they tailor-made defense attorneys or hard-charging prosecutors – will grow even greater.”

That may be true, though a bit overstated. Given the facts, it’s more likely that O.J. – not the Dream Team – will be viewed with contempt. And I admit, it’d be "kinda kewl" to take part in a trial so big.

* * *