Words and More

The trial of O.J. Simpson shook the United States to its core. Taking almost 9 months worth of time from the lawyers, the judge, and the jury, the 1995 case People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson remains officially unsolved to this day; nobody truly knows who murdered O.J. Simpson’s ex wife Nicole Brown Simpson, or her friend Ron Goldman. And the biggest reason for this uncertainty is Johnnie Cochran, the (eventual) lead attorney for the defense. But how did he win the case? How did Johnnie Cochran, despite the damning evidence against Simpson, win the jury over and win Simpson his freedom? The truth is that even though the prosecution had more than enough evidence to prove OJ potentially guilty, the defense provided a much more interesting and provocative narrative, not only to whom they were presenting their case but also when and how they presented it.

From the very beginning, from when he was first hired, Johnnie Cochran knew that if he wanted to win the case, he would have to go off script. Rather than focusing on proving reasonable doubt related to the evidence, although this did come up later in the trial, he accurately predicted that his best shot at winning would be to give his jury and his audience a story.

The case took place in LA County in California, and since the 1970s, the LAPD had been notorious for discriminating against African Americans and falsely accusing them of crimes. It was a corrupt system, in the most literal sense of the word. Cochran also knew that in order to influence the jury, he would have to use his platform as a well-known public speaker to influence and polarize the public, who would in turn influence the jury and the court’s final decision. So, when the time came for him to take his stand in favor of the defendant, Cochran blamed the corrupt LAPD for OJ Simpson’s arrest and argued that there was no real reason for Simpson’s arrest.

The African American population of the city and in the jury knew full well that this systemic corruption was ruining their lives, so when someone pointed this possibility out, they believed it. Riots occurred on the streets outside the courthouse because of how strongly people felt about the issue, and the majority African American jury could relate to Simpson’s struggle. Despite how long the case took, the jury came to their decision of releasing OJ within 4 hours of deliberation. While the prosecution did have the ability to further their own narrative by citing OJ’s prior record of abusing Natalie Brown, they were unable to do so nearly as effectively as Johnnie Cochran, because Johnnie Cochran knew who his audience was going to be, and he was wise enough to realize that the timing of the case could not have been more perfect to pin the doubted evidence of the case on the corrupt LAPD. Kairos became one of the major deciding outcomes of this case.

Next, we move into how Johnnie Cochran convinced his jury to doubt the evidence presented by the prosecution. The prosecution had an, although narrow, perfect timeline for events, had blood evidence, and was able to prove motive (the divorce of Simpson and Nicole Brown). They also proved a high possibility of Simpson murdering his ex-wife because of his history of domestic abuse. But again, the way in which Johnnie Cochran presented his argument was what put the ball in his literal court.

Like Chris Anderson stated, one of the most effective ways to argue a claim is to pose a question to your audience that shows them a disconnection in what they know and understand, and then prove your point so that they can fill the gap in their own minds. Probably the biggest example of this, at least in Johnnie Cochran’s closing argument, is his ever-famous quote: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” During the case, the prosecution had asked OJ Simpson to try on a bloody glove found at the crime scene. However, the glove didn’t fit. Whether this was because the glove was truly too small or because Simpson spread his fingers out so the glove truly wouldn’t fit will be something we’ll probably never know, but the fact remains that during that trial, the glove didn’t fit the hand of OJ Simpson.

Johnnie Cochran knew that this was going to be his biggest point against the prosecution, so he pointed it out multiple times during his closing argument. He repeatedly uttered the phrase to make sure that the disconnection in the jury’s minds between the prosecution’s claims and what they saw in court was filled with his proof of reasonable doubt. He ensured that the jury knew that they couldn’t convict someone without sufficient evidence, and he made this statement over and over again to show the jury that there was, in fact, insufficient evidence to convict OJ Simpson. The statement he made also had a rhyme and rhythm to it, which further helped get it stuck in people’s minds to this day. But the bottom line is that Cochran pointed out a flaw in the prosecution’s logic, which pushed the jury to deem Simpson innocent.

All in all, Johnnie Cochran’s understanding of how to use the timing and setting of the trial and ability to shed light on and then fill the disconnections in the jury’s line of thinking were what led to a verdict of innocence in People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. The world will likely never know who really murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, but the fact of the matter is that very often in court cases, it isn’t the logic or facts that lead to a verdict; it’s the narrative that convinces the jury to choose one side over the other. It’s up to you to decide what the outcome of the case should have been, but in this case specifically, a case that took almost 9 full months, the jury was able to come to a decision in just 4 hours, and this wouldn’t have happened had it not been for Johnnie Cochran.