Here we go again. Jury selection is underway in the civil trial against O.J. Simpson brought forth by the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.

It’s been almost a year since Simpson was acquitted by a Los Angeles jury.

Though Simpson was acquitted, few sensible people believe that he was really innocent. What started as an open and shut case turned into an absolutely disgusting display of the problems in our judicial system. At times the courtroom resembled the antics of the World Wrestling Federation.

The prosecution tried to portray Simpson as a jealous husband with uncontrolled fits of rage that pushed him over the edge. Those on his defense team played the race card to show that he had been the focus of an elaborate scheme to place the blame on a prominent black man.

The predominantly black jury used that trial in effect to right previous wrongs perpetrated against minorities in the court system.

Using the excuse that the evidence presented did not prove Simpson guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” they further dismantled the lives of the families of two brutally murdered people. It also didn’t help that Simpson was famous, and that most didn’t want to believe that he was guilty.

Fortunately this trial has shown itself different from the debacle of last year. We will not be subjected to the daily on-camera analysis by various “network legal experts” thanks to Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki’s order to remove all cameras and even sketch artists from the courtroom. He has also allowed few excuses in the jury selection process so that one will be seated quickly.

Judge Fujisaki also ruled that the testimony of former L.A.P.D. detective and avowed white supremacist Mark Furman will not be admissible. His testimony, though irrelevant to the case itself , helped the defense immensely in the criminal trial.

Instead of focusing on the facts of the case, Judge Lance Ito allowed previous racist statements made by Furman to be admitted as evidence. He however did not allow friends of Nicole Brown Simpson to testify about Simpson’s sometimes violent behavior.

The year-long case deteriorated into a kangaroo court, with both sides relegated to simple bickering and name-calling. Judge Ito had no control over the ringmaster of this circus, Johnny Cochran. Though he adamantly said he was not playing the race card, it was hard to hear Cochran in press conferences without mentioning Mark Furman’s name while being flanked by members of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. Fortunately, there will be no Cochran, Shapiro, or Dershowitz in this case. Simpson will have his personal lawyer, Robert Kardashian, present the case along with other less egocentric attorneys.

It’s also been reported that the trial is only expected to be about four months long. That’s still too long for any case, but it’s better than the alternative we saw last for over a year.

This entire controversy emphasizes a real problem in our nation’s courts today: Who really has rights, the criminals or the victims? Clearly, in this other case and hundreds more across the country, the criminals do.

How many times have you heard a criminal case where the defendant was acquitted on a technicality? Many, I’m sure. Though these technicalities are there to protect the innocent (and I’m glad they are), they being taken too far and too literally.

For instance, in the first Simpson trial, the jury found that he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What exactly constitutes a reasonable doubt? Should we expect a jury to acquit a person when the evidence is overwhelming but the lead investigator is a racist? I should hope not.

Though Furman should have never worn a badge, it was impossible for anyone on the L.A.P.D. to know his views or to allow those views to affect the investigation. Even if he had planted some evidence, does that change the fact that Simpson’s had a suspicious alibi, or that the DNA tests proved that he was in fact the man who murdered Brown and Goldman?

“Reasonable doubt” means just that. Ignoring the facts of a case just because of a small technicality is not “reasonable” at all. It retards the judicial process and further destroys the lives of the victims and their families.

Although the unique nature of the American court system allows for those accused to be innocent until proven guilty, that guilt often stares us in the face and we must not ignore it. Though the rights of criminals must be maintained, the rights of victims are more important.

Our court system maintains that justice will be served for those who have been wronged.

However, those wronged seldom enjoy the same protections of the law as the defendant/criminal.

It should be the responsibility of juries (including the Simpson jury) to ensure that justice is being served for both parties, and not to use the jury box as a bully pulpit.

---

Robert Zeis is a senior in finance from Des Moines.