What do you think?
Rate this book
Madam Foreman : A Rush to Judgement?
After 267 days as prisoners of the United States legal system, America's most famous jurors were thrilled to walk out into the sunlight of freedom. But within minutes of their release, they were overwhelmed by the blinding glare of white America's fury. Here, at last - in the words of jury foreman Armanda Cooley and fellow jurors Carrie Bess and Marsha-Rubin Jackson - are the answers to the questions that the nation has been asking ever since the controversial verdict that freed O. J. Simpson, the man who many believe got away with murder. The most comprehensive work on the Simpson trial, written from the perspective of the foreman and two fellow jurors, Madam Foreman is more than a recap of ten months of sequestration, it is a social commentary. Powerfully written, this work not only gives astonishing insight into the minds of the people who made the decision to set O. J. Simpson free, but gives voice to three African-American women who, before the trial of the century, had no voice at all.
237 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1995
6 people are currently reading
93 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 19, 2013
I'm on an OJ trial kick right now. This book was from the jury's perspective. In trying to keep an open mind, let me just list the goods and the bads about this one.
First the good. This poor jury was sequestered for nine months. These are citizens drafted into service and treated like criminals. That fact alone should cause you to assume they did the best job they could under the circumstances. One major circumstance was the evidence (or lack thereof) they were given. Several of them did believe OJ was guilty of murdering two people, but in their evaluation there was too much "reasonable doubt" to convict him. That reasonable doubt came from the LAPD bungled attempts to gather evidence at the crime scenes, a judge who catered to the media and enamored with the whole celebrity trial, and the presence of television cameras in the court room that turned the trial into a circus or sporting event rather than a court of law. Because of that, I give the jurors the benefit of the doubt as to why they acquitted Simpson. The trial went on way too long because of the Hollywood drama.
Next, the bad. This book had a whiny tone. In their own words, these women who were interviewed didn't seem to have any idea what they were supposed to do. Their evaluation of the proceedings focused more on impressions (such as so-and-so had nice hair, was polite, seemed professional, were just doing their job etc.) and less on the specific evidence. There was no doubt the defendant's blood was there and he was at least present at the crime scene, but they continually questioned why this, how that, maybe the other thing. It seems they focused more on questioning ways the defendant could have NOT have murdered two people than in examining the evidence that proved he did. They focused on creating scenarios of what COULD have happened instead of what did happen. My opinion is that they replaced "reasonable doubt" with "shadow of a doubt." There were no other suspects in the case, the defendant had motive and opportunity, and yet they claimed there was too much "reasonable doubt." Also, when asked which lawyers they liked or disliked the most, they all said they didn't dislike any of them. Yet, they criticized Chris Darden as a token black man to help the prosecution. They didn't care for Marcia Clark's mannerisms. I couldn't believe they didn't criticize anyone on the defense side. Really? And they "respected" Judge Ito. If they were so focused on impressions, I find it unbelievable that there was no criticism for the judge, or any lawyer on the dream team (whom they said were all "doing their job.") They denied racism had any play in their verdict, but some of the jurors who were dismissed declared they felt the dismissals were "unfair," even though one was a victim of domestic violence (a factor in the prosecution's establishing motive) and another was a member of the Black Panthers. Finally, the jury felt they were looked down upon as being uneducated, or stupid by the prosecution.
I only rated this one star. I'm surprised I finished it. After the first chapter I almost quit because I felt the women interviewed for this book were merely evaluating a movie, and not evaluating evidence. Overall, I felt hopeless despair that LA county couldn't find a jury pool of more variety.
First the good. This poor jury was sequestered for nine months. These are citizens drafted into service and treated like criminals. That fact alone should cause you to assume they did the best job they could under the circumstances. One major circumstance was the evidence (or lack thereof) they were given. Several of them did believe OJ was guilty of murdering two people, but in their evaluation there was too much "reasonable doubt" to convict him. That reasonable doubt came from the LAPD bungled attempts to gather evidence at the crime scenes, a judge who catered to the media and enamored with the whole celebrity trial, and the presence of television cameras in the court room that turned the trial into a circus or sporting event rather than a court of law. Because of that, I give the jurors the benefit of the doubt as to why they acquitted Simpson. The trial went on way too long because of the Hollywood drama.
Next, the bad. This book had a whiny tone. In their own words, these women who were interviewed didn't seem to have any idea what they were supposed to do. Their evaluation of the proceedings focused more on impressions (such as so-and-so had nice hair, was polite, seemed professional, were just doing their job etc.) and less on the specific evidence. There was no doubt the defendant's blood was there and he was at least present at the crime scene, but they continually questioned why this, how that, maybe the other thing. It seems they focused more on questioning ways the defendant could have NOT have murdered two people than in examining the evidence that proved he did. They focused on creating scenarios of what COULD have happened instead of what did happen. My opinion is that they replaced "reasonable doubt" with "shadow of a doubt." There were no other suspects in the case, the defendant had motive and opportunity, and yet they claimed there was too much "reasonable doubt." Also, when asked which lawyers they liked or disliked the most, they all said they didn't dislike any of them. Yet, they criticized Chris Darden as a token black man to help the prosecution. They didn't care for Marcia Clark's mannerisms. I couldn't believe they didn't criticize anyone on the defense side. Really? And they "respected" Judge Ito. If they were so focused on impressions, I find it unbelievable that there was no criticism for the judge, or any lawyer on the dream team (whom they said were all "doing their job.") They denied racism had any play in their verdict, but some of the jurors who were dismissed declared they felt the dismissals were "unfair," even though one was a victim of domestic violence (a factor in the prosecution's establishing motive) and another was a member of the Black Panthers. Finally, the jury felt they were looked down upon as being uneducated, or stupid by the prosecution.
I only rated this one star. I'm surprised I finished it. After the first chapter I almost quit because I felt the women interviewed for this book were merely evaluating a movie, and not evaluating evidence. Overall, I felt hopeless despair that LA county couldn't find a jury pool of more variety.
January 31, 2020
My book rating is based on how much it contributes to the OJ "story." That said, jurors' perspectives are always valuable, especially these three, who made it to the end to render the verdict. None of the other (dismissed) jurors' books are from jurors who actually rendered the verdict, though I may eventually read their books just for more perspectives on the sequestration part of the journey.
Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Armanda Cooley, and Carrie Bess, sequestered from the outside world, thought they were just doing their jobs, but realized how unpopular their verdict was as soon as they were released. (To this day, much vitriol is still directed at the jurors whenever this case is mentioned.) Understandably, then, I get the distinct impression that this book was also published to try to help people understand how they reached their verdict and try to assure readers that their verdict was not race-based.
Many critics of the verdict failed to understand that the public received a lot more information about the case than the jurors. You may not want to rely on this book to explain reasonable doubt, but if you want to understand that aspect better, read "American Tragedy" by Lawrence Schiller. As these jurors attest, Barry Scheck and the defense DNA experts contributed a lot more to the acquittal than Johnny Cochran. While I keep a healthy dose of skepticism when reading all OJ books, I believe these three. They had been sequestered for nine months!! So for a good part of the trial, they were a lot less impressed with theatrics and rhetoric, which they felt to be distracting and time-consuming, and were more interested in the attorneys who could prove--or in this case, disprove--the evidence. On with the substance so they could get home!
I'm not saying that I agree with these jurors' analyses of the evidence, and I am bothered by some of the 1990's attitudes towards domestic violence, which some have carried into the present. Carrie Bess, interviewed in the last couple years or so for the 2016 ESPN documentary, stated that she has no respect for women who stay with their abusers. She says pretty much the same thing in this book, though in less colorful, more muted language. But guess what? You have to work with the jury you get, so it's illuminating to see what people think. (To be fair, not a whole lot of abuse evidence made it into the trial before the jury. Still.)
The book is not very well served by the transcriber and editor, who did not seem to put much thought into the organization and flow of the book. It reads more or less like the three jurors sat down, told their stories and answered questions, and that was simply transcribed. The editor did not even catch multiple misspellings of the word "allele," a word that appears multiple times. This was especially unfortunate, as these misspellings occur just as the jurors are trying to convince the readers that they weren't as ignorant about the DNA evidence as the prosecution and the world thought them to be. Tom Byrnes and Mike Walker certainly didn't do them any favors with the shoddy transcription and editing. They probably wanted to release it as soon as possible, so the end result is not very polished. Nevertheless, the book provided much needed insight into the case, and I commend the effort.
Marsha Rubin-Jackson, Armanda Cooley, and Carrie Bess, sequestered from the outside world, thought they were just doing their jobs, but realized how unpopular their verdict was as soon as they were released. (To this day, much vitriol is still directed at the jurors whenever this case is mentioned.) Understandably, then, I get the distinct impression that this book was also published to try to help people understand how they reached their verdict and try to assure readers that their verdict was not race-based.
Many critics of the verdict failed to understand that the public received a lot more information about the case than the jurors. You may not want to rely on this book to explain reasonable doubt, but if you want to understand that aspect better, read "American Tragedy" by Lawrence Schiller. As these jurors attest, Barry Scheck and the defense DNA experts contributed a lot more to the acquittal than Johnny Cochran. While I keep a healthy dose of skepticism when reading all OJ books, I believe these three. They had been sequestered for nine months!! So for a good part of the trial, they were a lot less impressed with theatrics and rhetoric, which they felt to be distracting and time-consuming, and were more interested in the attorneys who could prove--or in this case, disprove--the evidence. On with the substance so they could get home!
I'm not saying that I agree with these jurors' analyses of the evidence, and I am bothered by some of the 1990's attitudes towards domestic violence, which some have carried into the present. Carrie Bess, interviewed in the last couple years or so for the 2016 ESPN documentary, stated that she has no respect for women who stay with their abusers. She says pretty much the same thing in this book, though in less colorful, more muted language. But guess what? You have to work with the jury you get, so it's illuminating to see what people think. (To be fair, not a whole lot of abuse evidence made it into the trial before the jury. Still.)
The book is not very well served by the transcriber and editor, who did not seem to put much thought into the organization and flow of the book. It reads more or less like the three jurors sat down, told their stories and answered questions, and that was simply transcribed. The editor did not even catch multiple misspellings of the word "allele," a word that appears multiple times. This was especially unfortunate, as these misspellings occur just as the jurors are trying to convince the readers that they weren't as ignorant about the DNA evidence as the prosecution and the world thought them to be. Tom Byrnes and Mike Walker certainly didn't do them any favors with the shoddy transcription and editing. They probably wanted to release it as soon as possible, so the end result is not very polished. Nevertheless, the book provided much needed insight into the case, and I commend the effort.
October 5, 2022
It was a bit rambling, but gave me some wonderful insight into these 3 ladies perspectives. The chapter of LA county trying to bring together strangers in a hotel room and keep them entertained under surveillance was hilarious.
April 18, 2018
I don't recommend this book.
I don't recommend this book as it was boring. No thoughtful analysis of evidence. Actually , I couldn't even finish reading it.
I don't recommend this book as it was boring. No thoughtful analysis of evidence. Actually , I couldn't even finish reading it.
August 15, 2018
Terrible book.
Read
May 21, 2023One of many books that fill in pieces regarding this trial. It was interesting to hear from three members of the jury.
June 4, 2023
For the evidence given to them they did their job to the best of their ability with no regrets.
March 9, 2024
Smooth and easy read...thank you to these three Simpson jurors for sharing their story.
March 8, 2017
The content was interesting however the way it was put together made for a less than enjoyable read. I found it hard to determine who was speaking sometimes and there was quite a bit of repetition throughout. If they had either had one lady speak per chapter or sectioned the chapters by individuals the book would have been more enjoyable.
April 15, 2017
I am guilty of judging these women too harshly. I've since shifted my judgment to the other two morons on Goodreads who reviewed this book. These three women are not writers, and their book shows it; however, it also shows a strength of character and a common sense intelligence with which I would not previously have credited them. Clearly, I do not agree with their verdict, but I can appreciate the manner in which they reached it. They each made it a point to be able to live with themselves and the verdict they reached. After nine long months of testimony, I can understand how they reached a consensus in four hours. I'd assume that after being pregnant for nine months, you don't want labor to last five days. The same thing happened here. These women deliberated honorably, and if they were unduly susceptible to Johnny Cochrane's conspiracies and loudmouth rhetoric, it wasn't racially driven. It was how they felt. They did their job to the best of their ability. Isn't that what we would expect?
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews