What do you think?
Rate this book
Verdict: The Chronicle of the O. J. Simpson Trial
Chronicles the activities of the trial, discusses events surrounding the case, and summarizes the arguments of both the prosecutor and the defense
120 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1995
About the author
Linda Deutsch
1 bookLinda Deutsch was an American journalist who worked for the Associated Press (AP). She covered court cases for 50 years, from 1967 until her retirement in 2014, including the high-profile trials of Charles Manson, Robert F. Kennedy’s assassin, as well as those of O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 2, 2026
A VETERAN NEWSPAPER REPORTER’S SUMMATION
Associated Press [AP] reporter Linda Deutsch (1944-2024) was at first the only reporter allowed by Judge Lance Ito to cover the jury selection process in the trial. (She had previously covered a number of noteworthy cases---such as of Charles Manson, and Patty Hearst.) Ito eventually allowed a reporter from the Los Angeles Times, and one from CNN, to also report on the selection process.
She observes, “What does [Simpson’s] trial mean to society? How will we remember it years hence? Perhaps jury reform will be debated in august halls of government, and maybe a few changes will be made. But beyond the sound and fury generated by battalions of lawyers on both sides who raised issues such as domestic violence and racial equality, the overriding social impact of the Simpson case is likely to be on a public suddenly addicted to daily TV trials as a way of life. Their supply could be abruptly cut off.
“A backlash is developing against cameras in the courtroom, and judges are loath to subject themselves to the kind of scrutiny focused on Judge Lance Ito. Lawyers are reassessing whether they want their own careers battered in public---a process that ended with the defense ‘Dream Team’ caught in an ugly, backbiting dispute. Life in the courtroom spotlight has become more dangerous than politics.
“Reporters who were drawn into the excess of competing with supermarket tabloids may reassess their chosen profession. Oddly enough, my guess is that the O.J. Simpson trial will be remembered for the way it changed the world of journalism for the people who called it ‘The Trial of the Century.’'’ (Pg. vii-viii)
She explains, “Superior Court Judge Lance Ito, assigned to the case… took on the job with… obvious gusto. He seemed the perfect choice. A Japanese-American, he could not be accused of taking sides on the basis of race… By the time the trial was over, the cheerful judge had become a grumpy, nearly tyrannical figure trying to exert an iron hand on a trial spinning out of control… He grew teary-eyed when he was forced to defend his wife, a police captain… With his distinctive beard, mustache, and owlish eyeglasses, he was easily parodied in the media.” (Pg. 6-7)
She continues, “The human toll was great… Bill Hodgman… of the district attorney’s staff… collapsed from stress and was rushed to a hospital after a particularly bitter courtroom session. He… left the spotlight to the tough, ambitious [Marcia] Clark, a woman whose dogged determination to convict Simpson---even at the cost of questionable legal moves---drew admirers among viewers but placed her in conflict with the judge and defense attorneys… and by trial’s end she appeared worn to a frazzle. Her personal life was dragged through tabloid headlines and she became embroiled in a messy custody fight for her two children when her ex-husband claimed the trial was distracting her from motherhood.” (Pg. 8-9) ‘Replacing Hodgman in the copilot’s seat was Christopher Darden, a black prosecutor whose race made him a lightning rod for attacks by Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., the hardball-playing defense attorney who was also black.” (Pg. 9)
She goes on, “The prosecution’s vast trial team, which included … assorted technical experts and support staff, saw their future effectiveness damaged by the Simpson case. DNA experts admitted that the validity of their science had been so harshly attacked by a team of defense DNA experts that new cases would be tougher to win. Defense lawyers had been given a priceless course for free, courtesy of TV, on how to undermine DNA evidence.” (Pg. 9)
She adds, “Johnnie Cochran, who had lived a charmed life as Los Angeles’ most revered black attorney, saw his reputation besmirched in grimy headlines emphasizing alleged domestic abuse in his former marriage. His black ex-wife wrote a book castigating him, and his white ex-mistress went public with the story of his double life and illegitimate child. His playing of ‘the race card’ on Simpson’s behalf drew widespread criticism and some blamed him for widening the racial divide in America… By trial’s end, Cochran was receiving death threats and had begun traveling with a retinue of fearsome-looking Nation of Islam bodyguards.” (Pg. 10)
She notes, “From the day testimony began, it was clear that the O.J. Simpson case would evolve as a tale of two trials: the case in the courtroom… and the contest in the public arena. Outside the courtroom, Simpson’s lawyers were playing to a different audience: the public that once embraced the football star and would hold the key to his future. With talk of a possible hung jury, the defense was keeping one eye on a potential second jury, a group that would likely be chosen from those exposed to the trial on TV… The public was watching and the attorneys knew it.” (Pg. 11)
She notes that the prosecution’s “Achilles’ heel was the Los Angeles Police Department, and the defense stuck thorns in it every chance they got. Their laboratory was depicted as a ‘cesspool of corruption.’ Their criminalists were shown to be inept if not dishonest. And, in a defense case that cried out for a villain to deflect attention from Simpson, the LAPD provided the perfect foil. His name was Mark Fuhrman and by trial’s end he became symbolic of the ingrown attitudes of racism rotting the heart of the LAPD… Those who had dismissed the defense theory of a frameup now thought twice… Fuhrman and [Detective Philip Vannatter]… had inadvertently provided the defense with the most important element of its case: reasonable doubt.” (Pg. 18)
She notes, “Later, police photographer Rolf Rokahr told the jury he took pictures of Fuhrman pointing at evidence in the pre-dawn darkness of June 13, 1994, before Fuhrman went to Simpson’s estate, not after he returned. The defense says this conflicts with Fuhrman’s account and suggests he took evidence to Simpson’s estate a ‘create probable cause.’” (Pg. 82)
She reports, “Cochran said that if Simpson had committed the murders, authorities should have found even more blood at his house, including on the doors, light switches and light-colored carpeting. Also, there was no blood around the glove found behind Simpson’s house.” (Pg. 99)
She lists the anonymous jurors as follows: “Divorced black woman, [age] 51; Single black woman, 25; Divorced white woman, 61; Single Hispanic man, 33; Married black woman, 38; Married black man, 44; Single black woman, 45; Single black woman, 39; Divorced black woman, 39; Divorced black woman, 53; Married black woman, 29; Single white woman, 23; Married black woman, 72.” (Pg. 114-115)
AP writer Michael Fleman wrote in the Epilogue, “[Simpson’s] world is shattered. The middle-aged white men he used to play golf with, and who gave him jobs selling rental cars and appearing in movies, are among those who most vehemently believe he’s a killer who got lucky. His staunchest supporters are urban African-Americans, the folks who made up the bulk of the jury, and it’s been a long time since Simpson has been to the community. Simpson’s early efforts to explain himself were a miserable---and highly public---failure; he agreed to a no-holds-barred live interview with NBC, then backed out when he found out the session wouldn’t be a ‘conversation.’ He would then speak for free to the New York Times, but refuse to discuss the evidence… He vowed to find the ‘real’ killer or killers, and to spend more time with his children.” (Pg. 124)
This is a well-photographed book, that is an excellent ‘journalistic’ summation of the case.
Associated Press [AP] reporter Linda Deutsch (1944-2024) was at first the only reporter allowed by Judge Lance Ito to cover the jury selection process in the trial. (She had previously covered a number of noteworthy cases---such as of Charles Manson, and Patty Hearst.) Ito eventually allowed a reporter from the Los Angeles Times, and one from CNN, to also report on the selection process.
She observes, “What does [Simpson’s] trial mean to society? How will we remember it years hence? Perhaps jury reform will be debated in august halls of government, and maybe a few changes will be made. But beyond the sound and fury generated by battalions of lawyers on both sides who raised issues such as domestic violence and racial equality, the overriding social impact of the Simpson case is likely to be on a public suddenly addicted to daily TV trials as a way of life. Their supply could be abruptly cut off.
“A backlash is developing against cameras in the courtroom, and judges are loath to subject themselves to the kind of scrutiny focused on Judge Lance Ito. Lawyers are reassessing whether they want their own careers battered in public---a process that ended with the defense ‘Dream Team’ caught in an ugly, backbiting dispute. Life in the courtroom spotlight has become more dangerous than politics.
“Reporters who were drawn into the excess of competing with supermarket tabloids may reassess their chosen profession. Oddly enough, my guess is that the O.J. Simpson trial will be remembered for the way it changed the world of journalism for the people who called it ‘The Trial of the Century.’'’ (Pg. vii-viii)
She explains, “Superior Court Judge Lance Ito, assigned to the case… took on the job with… obvious gusto. He seemed the perfect choice. A Japanese-American, he could not be accused of taking sides on the basis of race… By the time the trial was over, the cheerful judge had become a grumpy, nearly tyrannical figure trying to exert an iron hand on a trial spinning out of control… He grew teary-eyed when he was forced to defend his wife, a police captain… With his distinctive beard, mustache, and owlish eyeglasses, he was easily parodied in the media.” (Pg. 6-7)
She continues, “The human toll was great… Bill Hodgman… of the district attorney’s staff… collapsed from stress and was rushed to a hospital after a particularly bitter courtroom session. He… left the spotlight to the tough, ambitious [Marcia] Clark, a woman whose dogged determination to convict Simpson---even at the cost of questionable legal moves---drew admirers among viewers but placed her in conflict with the judge and defense attorneys… and by trial’s end she appeared worn to a frazzle. Her personal life was dragged through tabloid headlines and she became embroiled in a messy custody fight for her two children when her ex-husband claimed the trial was distracting her from motherhood.” (Pg. 8-9) ‘Replacing Hodgman in the copilot’s seat was Christopher Darden, a black prosecutor whose race made him a lightning rod for attacks by Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., the hardball-playing defense attorney who was also black.” (Pg. 9)
She goes on, “The prosecution’s vast trial team, which included … assorted technical experts and support staff, saw their future effectiveness damaged by the Simpson case. DNA experts admitted that the validity of their science had been so harshly attacked by a team of defense DNA experts that new cases would be tougher to win. Defense lawyers had been given a priceless course for free, courtesy of TV, on how to undermine DNA evidence.” (Pg. 9)
She adds, “Johnnie Cochran, who had lived a charmed life as Los Angeles’ most revered black attorney, saw his reputation besmirched in grimy headlines emphasizing alleged domestic abuse in his former marriage. His black ex-wife wrote a book castigating him, and his white ex-mistress went public with the story of his double life and illegitimate child. His playing of ‘the race card’ on Simpson’s behalf drew widespread criticism and some blamed him for widening the racial divide in America… By trial’s end, Cochran was receiving death threats and had begun traveling with a retinue of fearsome-looking Nation of Islam bodyguards.” (Pg. 10)
She notes, “From the day testimony began, it was clear that the O.J. Simpson case would evolve as a tale of two trials: the case in the courtroom… and the contest in the public arena. Outside the courtroom, Simpson’s lawyers were playing to a different audience: the public that once embraced the football star and would hold the key to his future. With talk of a possible hung jury, the defense was keeping one eye on a potential second jury, a group that would likely be chosen from those exposed to the trial on TV… The public was watching and the attorneys knew it.” (Pg. 11)
She notes that the prosecution’s “Achilles’ heel was the Los Angeles Police Department, and the defense stuck thorns in it every chance they got. Their laboratory was depicted as a ‘cesspool of corruption.’ Their criminalists were shown to be inept if not dishonest. And, in a defense case that cried out for a villain to deflect attention from Simpson, the LAPD provided the perfect foil. His name was Mark Fuhrman and by trial’s end he became symbolic of the ingrown attitudes of racism rotting the heart of the LAPD… Those who had dismissed the defense theory of a frameup now thought twice… Fuhrman and [Detective Philip Vannatter]… had inadvertently provided the defense with the most important element of its case: reasonable doubt.” (Pg. 18)
She notes, “Later, police photographer Rolf Rokahr told the jury he took pictures of Fuhrman pointing at evidence in the pre-dawn darkness of June 13, 1994, before Fuhrman went to Simpson’s estate, not after he returned. The defense says this conflicts with Fuhrman’s account and suggests he took evidence to Simpson’s estate a ‘create probable cause.’” (Pg. 82)
She reports, “Cochran said that if Simpson had committed the murders, authorities should have found even more blood at his house, including on the doors, light switches and light-colored carpeting. Also, there was no blood around the glove found behind Simpson’s house.” (Pg. 99)
She lists the anonymous jurors as follows: “Divorced black woman, [age] 51; Single black woman, 25; Divorced white woman, 61; Single Hispanic man, 33; Married black woman, 38; Married black man, 44; Single black woman, 45; Single black woman, 39; Divorced black woman, 39; Divorced black woman, 53; Married black woman, 29; Single white woman, 23; Married black woman, 72.” (Pg. 114-115)
AP writer Michael Fleman wrote in the Epilogue, “[Simpson’s] world is shattered. The middle-aged white men he used to play golf with, and who gave him jobs selling rental cars and appearing in movies, are among those who most vehemently believe he’s a killer who got lucky. His staunchest supporters are urban African-Americans, the folks who made up the bulk of the jury, and it’s been a long time since Simpson has been to the community. Simpson’s early efforts to explain himself were a miserable---and highly public---failure; he agreed to a no-holds-barred live interview with NBC, then backed out when he found out the session wouldn’t be a ‘conversation.’ He would then speak for free to the New York Times, but refuse to discuss the evidence… He vowed to find the ‘real’ killer or killers, and to spend more time with his children.” (Pg. 124)
This is a well-photographed book, that is an excellent ‘journalistic’ summation of the case.
April 26, 2017
From what I understand, Linda Deutsch was one of the more honorable members of the press corp during the People v Simpson. While the text doesn't contain an abundance of lesser known facts, it's interesting to see how the AP covered the trial in the seemingly long-ago 90's. Deutsch presents a measured, unbiased account of trial highlights, and it's interesting to examine a style that no longer appears in hard copy news.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews