Listening to parts of the closing arguments in the latest trial of O.J. Simpson I realized how many similarities there were with the trial in which I served as a juror: repugnant defendants (excluding C.J. Stewart who, in my opinion, is completely innocent), over-zealous prosecutors, prosecutorial judges, and definitions of certain aspects of the law, especially kidnapping and criminal intent.

Repugnant: O.J. versus "My" Defendant

Sitting in the jury box while a repugnant criminal is on trial isn't easy. It's even more difficult when you are torn by your fear of this person being "at large" and your conviction that he did not commit the crimes of which he is accused. You know you're going to have vote "not guilty" (at least on some charges), even though you suspect there's more evil beneath the surface, which the law is unable to address. It is beyond stressful.

Over-zealous Prosecutors

Prosecutors too often over-charge, pile charge on top of charge, either in hopes that one charge will stick if the others fail, or to punish a defendant for crimes that can't be proven, or, perhaps, for the notoriety. In O.J.'s case, I was appalled to hear the prosecutors claim that the jury would "write the final chapter" in O. J. Simpson's story.

Prosecutorial Judges

Judge Glass has showed her temper throughout the trial. On one hand, I would prefer for a judge to be uniformly calm. On the other hand, I also wonder why a judge can say she feels like letting her head spin around and fire spew from her mouth but O. J. Simpson isn't allowed to yell at people who have "stolen" his "stuff," such as photos of his deceased mother and daughter.

It's just my opinion, but I thought many of Judge Glass's decisions were pro-prosecution. In the case in which I served as a juror, after the verdict our female judge as much as told us we were wrong to acquit the defendant of kidnapping charges.

Legal Issues

I've written before about the abuse of kidnapping laws as a means of stiffening sentences for other, lesser crimes. This is wrong. I don't care whether O. J. said, "No one leaves," or "Don't let anyone leave here," or anything of that kind. I can think of a dozen situations in which a person might say that completely innocently. When you are arguing with someone, the last thing you want is your "opponent" to just walk out. They even say this in Congress.

Another issue that troubles me is "intent." Apparently most crimes involve the concept of "intent." In the trial in which I served as juror, the issue of the intent to commit kidnapping was an important issue. The judge's instructions said that the defendant had to "knowingly" commit kidnapping. Let's face it: if you were the best man at a wedding in a day or two, would you plan and intend to kidnap someone and then hang around for the wedding?

I could go on and on. But I'm about to take a week's hiatus from this blog. The jury will reach a verdict while I'm away from this keyboard. I will revisit these issues after the verdict.

Good luck to the jury.