The Prosecution Responds: An O.J. Simpson Trial Prosecutor Reveals What Really Happened

by Hank Goldberg

In a serious and compelling analysis of one of the most significant events in U.S. history, Goldberg presents the bulk of the prosecution's forensic and scientific evidence, and shares extensive information about the mechanics, tactics, and strategies of the prosecution's case.

Genres: True Crime

386 pages, Hardcover

First published August 13, 1996

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A PURPORTED ‘INSIDE’ PERSPECTIVE ON THE PROSECUTION

Hank Goldberg was a deputy District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles, and was one of the prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

He wrote in the introductory ‘Author to Reader’ section of this 1996 book, “Since the time I was assigned to the case as a member of the prosecution team, hundreds of people have approached me and written to me with questions… By comprehensively revealing the behind-the-scenes strategy and tactics of the prosecution, I will show that in virtually every major tactical decision, the prosecution chose the best available option… But more important, readers will see how much such decisions fit within the overall case strategy and made sense in the context of the trial as a whole.

“The failure to do this is the principal weakness of the outside ‘analyses’ from commentators such as Vincent Bugliosi. For example, Bugliosi confesses that he did not watch the entire trial because he found it boring. While writing his book, Bugliosi called me several times to ask specific questions about what happened during the trial. When I asked him why he did not consult the trial transcript, he replied that it was too expensive to obtain a copy. He admitted that he did not read most of the transcript: he just reviewed specific portions such as the closing arguments… There are a number of … mistakes in Vince’s book [‘Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder’]… Vince argues that the prosecution should have introduced O.J. Simpson’s statement to the police in which he proclaimed his innocence… this is an astounding recommendation. The jury would have been able to hear the defendant’s self-serving denial … and the prosecution would have been unable to cross-examine Simpson… Why does Vince argue that the prosecution should have used Simpson’s statement? Because… Simpson admitted to bleeding in his Bronco… on the night of the murders… But [Bugliosi] was ignorant of the fact that the defense was not contesting that Simpson bled in the Bronco and at his home the night of the murders.” (Pg. ix-x)

He continues, “my book presents in-depth coverage, from inside the prosecution, of the five key aspects of the case: the domestic-violence evidence, Mark Fuhrman, the scientific and physical evidence, defense expert Henry Lee, and the closing arguments. I was involved in all of these aspects. [This book]… EXPLAINS the trial by quoting portions of the trial transcript itself… rather than the author’s arguably biased recollection… The prosecution presented overwhelming evidence of guilt… Therefore, the answer to the question … why was the verdict ‘not guilty’?---cannot be found in the evidence… We must look to factors external to the courtroom itself to understand the verdict.” (Pg. xii)

When, the day after the murders, detective Ron Phillips “eventually located Simpson in Chicago and spoke to him over the phone. Ron informed Simpson that his ex-wife had been killed. The first words out of Simpson’s mouth were ‘She’s been killed?… Oh, my god, Nicole is dead.’ … Why are my kids at the police station?’ Ron replied, “They are there for safekeeping… I need to know what to do with your children.’ Simpson said, ‘I’m going to be leaving out of Chicago on the first available flight…’ He did not ask how Nicole had been killed, when it happened, how it happened, who killed her, or any other question concerning the circumstances of his ex-wife’s death.” (Pg. 66)

He states, “I was totally surprised about Mark Fuhrman’s statements in his disability suit… they were made in the early 80s and were not inconsistent with the more rigid Mark Fuhrman I knew in 1987. However, they were inconsistent with the Mark Fuhrman I knew after 1990. My own belief was that Mark was probably not currently a racist. This was based on the changes I saw in him after 1990… Therefore, I believed Mark was what I referred to as a ‘recovered racist.’” (Pg. 75-76)

After the infamous incident of Simpson trying on the killer’s gloves in court, in an evening meeting of the prosecution, “Someone popped in the tape of the glove demonstration… I saw Simpson’s facae apparently mugging, his hands and arms broadly gesticulating, as he struggled to put on the gloves… Chris [Darden] looked up at me dolefully, ‘Well?’ ‘… "Looks like a Grade-B acting job to me. Don’t you think the glove fit?’ I asked. ‘I know they fit,’ Chris replied… ‘How do you think we should handle this?’ ‘… 'Play it for the jury… it really is quite clear … that Simpson is faking. So show it over and over. ‘Stop the tape! Look at that grin! … Look how easily he popped the gloves off.’ … The crowded room grew silent, and everyone stared at me as if they had just heard the ravings of a madman.” (Pg. 207-208)

He cross-examined Dr. Henry Lee: “I … wanted to dispel the defense canard that, had Simpson committed the murders, he would have been drenched in blood and there should have been more blood in the Bronco and at Rockingham… [I asked] ‘if a person were to wrap their arm around someone’s throat and slit that person’s throat… and the blood spurted forward, would you expect the assailant to be covered in blood? ‘Probably not.’ … I also had Dr. Lee explain what would happen if only Simpson’s front side were drenched in blood when he entered the Bronco. Lee said, ‘You don’t have transfer.’ In other words, there would not be significant amounts of blood transferred from Simpson’s clothes to the Bronco. So much for the defense contention that there was too little blood in the Bronco.” (Pg. 262)

He reports, “About two weeks before the closing arguments Scott [Gordon] and I met… to assemble the ideas from all the attorneys into final form… The factors were broken up into 15 major categories… ‘Number three: Simpson told Ron Shipp he had dreams of killing Nicole… Item four: His whereabouts were unaccounted for during the murders. Kato sees him at 9:35, and he’s not seen again until he appears at 10:54, when the limo gets there… Factor five: We can put the defendant in the Bronco at 10:03 through the cell-phone records… He’s in the Bronco only minutes before the probable time of the murders… We know the person who murdered Ron and Nicole used that Bronco because Ron and Nicole’s blood is in it…. Factor six, the thumps Kato heard between 10:50 and 10:51, near where the glove was found… There seems to be evidence of an alibi set up with Kato. This would be factor eight… Simpson asks Kato for some change to go get something to eat. How often do you think Simpson asks Kato for money?… Number ten: the fact that he gets a hand injury on the very same day his wife is murdered… number thirteen: His cut is on his left hand, and the glove lost at Bundy, is a left-handed glove.” (Pg. 310-312)

He comments, “Alan Dershowitz’s… new book---in which he argues that he knew all along that the prosecution made a number of mistakes that sealed our fate---is unquestionably revisionist history. He apparently did not feel that way on the eve of the verdict, when he was ruminating about the appeal.” (Pg. 341)

He reports, “In a recent ‘Yale Law Journal’ article… law professor Paul Butler … stated that among the discoveries that profoundly affected him as an African American and as a prosecutor was that ‘we would lose many of our cases, despite having persuaded a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. We would lose because some black jurors would refuse to convict black defendants who they knew were guilty… [This] is called ‘jury nullification.’ Butler calls …. African-American jurors ignoring the law in order to acquit African-American defendants ‘racially based jury nullification.’” (Pg. 353)

He summarizes, “The most persuasive evidence that the jury did not consider the prosecution’s evidence is that they took less than four hours to ‘deliberate.’ After the verdict, Jim Moret.. interviewed two Simpson jurors… [and] wanted to know how they arrived at the verdict so quickly. [One of them] explained that since everyone agreed that Simpson was not guilty, it wasn’t necessary to go over the evidence… there was nothing left to discuss.” (Pg. 356)

“In the book ‘Madam Foreman,’ Carrie Bess discounted the blood evidence in part ‘because they never tested to see what the kids’ blood drops were… Juror Armanda Cooley was troubled that Marcia and Chris seemed frustrated and nervous at times in court. It made her think, if your case is so strong, why are you so frustrated?… another juror was concerned that the Rockingham glove was TOO WET when it was dropped. Conversely, Ms. Cooley apparently thought the glove was TOO DRY when it was dropped.” (Pg. 356-357)

He concludes, “The verdict can best be understood in terms of the social forces that produced it… These [simplistic] explanations … do not require us to examine the larger social forces at work in this case. They give us permission not to look into the mirror and ask who we are.” (Pg. 357)

This book will be of keen interest to those studying the Simpson case.

[Kim Q. · Rating 3 out of 5]

OJ absolutely did it, but Goldberg asserting that we need MORE police on the street to combat crime, after asserting the police ARE corrupt and racist, is a level of reaching heretofore unseen since the early Olympic games.

[Jon]

This book does a fairly good job of defending the OJ Simpson prosecution team against the attacks made on it by Vincent Bugliosi in his book OUTRAGE, in which Bugliosi says the prosecutors should have put a bib on the jury and spoon-fed them the evidence, but failed to feed the babies. By contrast, Goldberg suggests that with a jury like that the prosecution was screwed from the get-go. (Wish there was more about the jury, I'd have liked to gain a little more insight into what they were thinking, if that's the right word.) At least, maybe Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld picked up some pointers from their OJ-defense-team experience that have helped them free convicts--who really were innocent--as part of the Innocence Project. The chapter where Goldberg talks to his mentally disturbed sister on the phone, and all she can talk about is eating, is heartbreaking. Maybe she's the only sane one in the book.

[Phil · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book despite the fact that it is the 18th book I've read on the Simpson trial. Everyone has new information! Goldberg is intelligent and clear, and defends against many of the claims Bugliosi posited in his attack on the prosecution in "Outrage." As a trilogy, Clark's, Darden's, and Goldberg's books paint a picture of an intelligent, planned prosecution. Just wait until I review your book, Cochrane. I'm comin' for ya.