Months into the O. J. Simpson murder trial and with no verdict in sight, jurors, court officers and even the system itself already have endured cruel and unusual punishment.
Christopher Darden, the young deputy prosecutor in the case, startled many but made pointed sense when he announced recently in a newspaper interview that he was ashamed to be involved in the trial, that it had shaken his faith in the U.S. legal system and caused him to consider leaving his job when the case ends.
“Everything about this case and these proceedings is imperfect,” he said. “Frankly, I’m ashamed to be a part of this case.”
Pity even more the poor jurors. After weeks of sequestration away from friends, family and even their fellow jurors, it is small wonder that some are rumored to be getting touchy and close to blows.
Darden was not alone in his shaken faith. A new CNN-Gallup poll later in the week found a staggering 82 percent of the Americans polled felt the justice system had “broken down” in the Simpson case.
One need not be a legal expert to feel that this trial has compromised the judicial process. The defense sometimes seems to be playing too much to the racial sympathies of black jurors, and both sides often seem to be playing to the cameras.
Judge Lance Ito seems occasionally to have let proceedings drag on longer than necessary and to have removed jurors for trivial reasons. Defense attorneys already are hinting that if a mistrial is declared for lack of a full jury, they may plead to have their client released because a second trial would constitute double jeopardy.
Yet in many ways the trial is not as bad as it may look to first-time viewers. The fact is that trials take time. This case is unusual in the attention it has received, attention brought on by the fame of the defendant.
That, in turn, has dramatically changed the way justice is processed and also, perhaps, the ways in which it is served. Coverage of most cases mercifully spares home audiences the sheer tedium of many important day-to-day procedural matters. The all-seeing eyes of CNN and Court TV do not.
Years of “Perry Mason” or “L.A. Law” have fooled many viewers into believing trials are neater and cleaner and quicker than they typically are.
Justice often is rough; lawyers become as theatrical as the case and the depth of their clients’ pockets will allow. They often try to play to the prejudices of jurors. Judges often take their time to make sure that just procedures are carried out and rights are guaranteed. Jurors sometimes have to suffer long sequestrations to assure fairness to the defendant.
One is reminded of Otto Von Bismarck’s famous remark that anyone who loves the law and sausage should not watch either being made. Or, in the case of the law, being adjudicated.
The Simpson case may be the first wave of a new future of high-profile trials. It does not mean the system has broken down. It just means that it has been demystified, that more ordinary people are getting a chance to watch it at work, close up, warts and all. Americans may not always be comfortable with it, but they can learn from it.
