RIP: Johnnie Cochran dies at age 67

[Pacion]

Los Angeles - Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., the dynamic, eminently quotable attorney whose televised murder defense of O.J. Simpson made him a legal superstar, died Tuesday. He was 67.

Cochran died of a brain disorder in Los Angeles, said law partner Randy McMurray.

[pygmalion]

May he rest in peace.

[DancePoet]

His defense of O.J. Simpson made his name well known, but he also had a number of other cases that were very significant. I recall he once got a man released from some thing like 25 years in prison for crime he didn't commit, and proved another guy hadn't commited suicide, but instead had been strangled while in the custody of police. Cochrane had a long career of protecting and defending people's rights in America, particularly black folks. It is a bummer that brain cancer got him at 67.

[pygmalion]

Yep. He was known in the black community as an advocate for the underdog. His community service far outweighs the his big profile cases, in my mind. 8)

[Pacion]

Yes, in one of the articles I read about him tonight, the spokesperson said that it was the "Non OJs" ie the ordinary, non high profile cases that were very close to his heart.

[DancePoet]

I was surprised, I had know idea he was dealing with a brain tumor. :(

[Bob]

He may have been a hero to many, but I only know him for the fact that he played the race card to allow a man to get away with murder.

I think that eliminates any potential respect I may have had for him.

[Pacion]

Umm Bob. From recollection, he also showed up a lot of failings/mistakes in how the police handled the crime scene and the subsequent investigation, which were huge.

Supposing that OJ had been found guilty, yet was indeed innocent, which would have been the greatest travesity? A "guilty" man freed or an "innocent" man imprisioned?

From what I read last night, one of the turning points in the trial was whether THAT glove fitted or not, just one of the "cards" that Johnnie Cochran "played".

From the little I have read of OJ's subsequent live, although he may have been found "not guilty", the major of Hollywood/American society have treated him as an outcast, plus from recollection, he has limited access to his children, if any at all.. (Plus there was the civil suits his ex-wife's and her friend's families which they "won" to the tune of $33 million dollars?) It maybe of no "small comfort" to the families affected and Joe Public but even though he is free to walk the streets, my understanding is that he is living in "prison/as an outcast" daily! So he hasn't exactly gotten off scotch free.

[pygmalion]

Eh. A lot of people probably agree with Bob, which I understand. Johnnie Cochran came to the world's attention via the OJ trial, which was controversial and highly visible. And the outcome was widely protested. So that's okay. Bob's not wrong to see it as he sees it.

I think it's a shame to have his life summed up that way, though. Mr. Cochran did many, many selfless things that weren't as widely pubclicized. He also, during the OJ trial, was doing his job -- being an advocate for the accused, in a criminal justice system which requires every accused person to have an advocate and fair representation. *shrug* I can't hold that against him. But I understand why others might. *shrug again*

(Hmm. shrugging a lot this morning. I must be having an unusually self-doubting day. Eh. A little self-doubt is good for the character. :lol: :lol: )

[Pacion]

I agree with/understand Pygmalion what you wrote. (When haven't I :wink: )

But as you know, there are people who believe that whilst you may instinctively know that someone is guilty, the evidence has to holdup. Therefore,

a) if the evidence does not holdup
b) there were circumstances where the evidence could have been tampered with or tainted
c) all the other catalogued mistakes/bungles of the OJ Simpson trial

then what is a person/defence lawyer/jury to do?

Therein are the reasons why I could not have been a criminal lawyer :?

[kansas49er]

I think Simpson was guilty. I think that Mr Cochran used tactics that were in poor taste and that helped to keep a guilty man free. I think that was his job. He did it well, as he succeeded. The rest was up to the judge and jury, who, in my opnion, failed the system. Mr Cochran did not. It is unfortunate that this man died at such an early age.

[TemptressToo]

I'm a paralegal and I absolutely refuse to do defense work. It sickens me to see attorneys get guilty people off on technicalities. To play the system going thru some legal loophole is just plain unethical.

I too feel OJ is guilty as sin. Leave it to Cochron to worm around grasping at straws and the "what ifs" placing a fragment of doubt into the mind of the jury. I simply can't respect a person for doing something like that...especially considering most defense attorneys know the truth.

[Bob]

I would normally bristle at the thought of convicting a man via the media (which is what I have done with the OJ trial)), and you are right to say that the jury found him innocent.

However: the DNA evidance was conclusive, the circumstances were appropriate, the motive was obvious.

A guilty man got away with murder because his lawyer used every tactic (moral and immoral) to manipulate the jury into a reasonable doubt. A rich man got away with murder because a dream team of lawyers took on a moderately skilled attourney.

This isn't how it should work out in a perfect world, but clearly we are in an imperfect world.

[Pacion]

This isn't how it should work out in a perfect world, but clearly we are in an imperfect world.

That is right. It is an imperfect world. Which is why, you have a way with words, and I am cute. If it were a perfect world, I would be cute AND have a way with words too :wink:

[Bob]

:D

[kansas49er]

Johny Cochran was paid to provide every defense possible. He was contratually obligated to do so. He was also ethically obliged to do so under the canons of his profession. It was up to the judge and jury to see thru the BS. Too bad they didn't see their ethical obligation to see the truth for what is was. I agree with you on the evidence. I agree that a guilty man was set free. We disagree on the reason.
In general, most defense attorneys are like ladies of hte evening. They have entered a profession for which they will generally take on any customer if they have the price, and provide them the best services they can muster. I have told that to several lawyer friends of mine. The honest ones admit that it is so, the delusional ones go on an on about defending the innocent, the cynical ones only "wait till you need an defense attorney, then tell them that.
Judges and juries that their own agendas. Many people who would make great jury members try and get out of jury duty because they have "better" things to do. Wrong! No wonder there are outrageous jury actions. Many people without agendas, on either side, are dismissed, for just the reason they are perceived to not have an agenda. Jury selection is a game between the two lawyers to try and get jury members who will
play into their game. It is the judge who must keep them honest. Unfortunately that is often another matter.

[Bob]

Entirely true.

[DancePoet]

I think Simpson was guilty. I think that Mr Cochran used tactics that were in poor taste and that helped to keep a guilty man free. I think that was his job. He did it well, as he succeeded. The rest was up to the judge and jury, who, in my opnion, failed the system. Mr Cochran did not. It is unfortunate that this man died at such an early age.
Yes, but if the police and prosecuters did a poor job, then they may have failed the system, too. And frankly, if they did, and in the process couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then it seems like it wasn't the judge and jury that failed.

I could point to some of Cochran's questionable personal behaviours and bad mouth the guy for these, but in the end he was human, and he seemed to take some actions during his career that helped justice along whether or not one disagrees with the outcome of the O.J. trial.

[DancePoet]

I'm a paralegal and I absolutely refuse to do defense work. It sickens me to see attorneys get guilty people off on technicalities. To play the system going thru some legal loophole is just plain unethical.

I too feel OJ is guilty as sin. Leave it to Cochron to worm around grasping at straws and the "what ifs" placing a fragment of doubt into the mind of the jury. I simply can't respect a person for doing something like that...especially considering most defense attorneys know the truth.
We live in America, and the guilty people have rights that need to be protected in case for some reason they aren't really guilty. Cochran did some good things throughout his career, in the protection of those rights for other's who were having them trampled on. Can he be respected for that?

[DancePoet]

Johny Cochran was paid to provide every defense possible. He was contratually obligated to do so. He was also ethically obliged to do so under the canons of his profession. It was up to the judge and jury to see thru the BS. Too bad they didn't see their ethical obligation to see the truth for what is was. I agree with you on the evidence. I agree that a guilty man was set free. We disagree on the reason.

In general, most defense attorneys are like ladies of the evening. They have entered a profession for which they will generally take on any customer if they have the price, and provide them the best services they can muster. I have told that to several lawyer friends of mine. The honest ones admit that it is so, the delusional ones go on an on about defending the innocent, the cynical ones only "wait till you need an defense attorney, then tell them that".
Perhaps, yet perhaps all three answers are correct at the same time.

Judges and juries that their own agendas. Many people who would make great jury members try and get out of jury duty because they have "better" things to do. Wrong! No wonder there are outrageous jury actions. Many people without agendas, on either side, are dismissed, for just the reason they are perceived to not have an agenda. Jury selection is a game between the two lawyers to try and get jury members who will
play into their game. It is the judge who must keep them honest. Unfortunately that is often another matter.
Yes, but it is also those who would trample on the rights of the innocent that make the first mistake, and some defense attorney somewhere needs to protect such individuals, and Cochran did this well. Truth, idealism, and somebody has got to do it for our system to even have an opportunity to work.

[Joe]

Just wait til y'all need a defense attorney, even for traffic court.

[pygmalion]

Joe. Did I mention I'm falling in love with you? Uh... oh.. Your sense of humor? :wink: :friend:

[DancePoet]

Just wait til y'all need a defense attorney, even for traffic court.
:lol:

[kansas49er]

I am a constitutionalist by nature. And not in the "modern" form where many find things that don't exist, except in their own mind, or it (the Constitution" evolves over time. Everyone has the right to a fair trial. Everyone has the right to defended. Hence my defense of Johnny Cochran. Again, most attorneys I know initially get into law for one of three reasons 1) It's the FAMILY business 2) The allure of big money 3) the allure of being a champion for the rights of the prosecuted. Number 1 makes it like any other FAMILY business and usually does not come into too much defense work. Number 2 is a struggle, especiallly for young attorneys and most don't realize how much time it takes--justice is a harsh mistress. Number three usually fades as it becomes clearer and clearer that those they represent are guilty as hell. in fact, I know of quite a few defense attorneys, especially those that were part of the public defenders office, that left defense work because of that. I personally do not believe in excluding evidence that is clear and compelling because it wasn't done exactly right. Instead, I think you punish the police for violations. That could include jail time. My disagreement with the current philosphy is the "better that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail".. I disagree. given the amount of recidivism, that translates to a whole lot of personal anguish that didn't have to happen. I believe in feeling the consequences of your actions, whether you are the perpetrator, or the justice system. OJ was guilty. Wether Mark Furman was a rascist or not really did not matter in the guilt of OJ. It only mattered in the guilt of Mark Furman. It only inflamed the jury. Johnny Cochran did was he was paid to do by submtting that thought. The jury should have said "so what"
Just my opinion. In any case, I guess this really isn't dance related. Just interesting.

[kansas49er]

Johny Cochran was paid to provide every defense possible. He was contratually obligated to do so. He was also ethically obliged to do so under the canons of his profession. It was up to the judge and jury to see thru the BS. Too bad they didn't see their ethical obligation to see the truth for what is was. I agree with you on the evidence. I agree that a guilty man was set free. We disagree on the reason.

In general, most defense attorneys are like ladies of the evening. They have entered a profession for which they will generally take on any customer if they have the price, and provide them the best services they can muster. I have told that to several lawyer friends of mine. The honest ones admit that it is so, the delusional ones go on an on about defending the innocent, the cynical ones only "wait till you need an defense attorney, then tell them that".
Perhaps, yet perhaps all three answers are correct at the same time.

:?

Judges and juries that their own agendas. Many people who would make great jury members try and get out of jury duty because they have "better" things to do. Wrong! No wonder there are outrageous jury actions. Many people without agendas, on either side, are dismissed, for just the reason they are perceived to not have an agenda. Jury selection is a game between the two lawyers to try and get jury members who will
play into their game. It is the judge who must keep them honest. Unfortunately that is often another matter.
Yes, but it is also those who would trample on the rights of the innocent that make the first mistake, and some defense attorney somewhere needs to protect such individuals, and Cochran did this well. Truth, idealism, and somebody has got to do it for our system to even have an opportunity to work.


Actually, I agree. :D :D :D

[peachexploration]

Just wait til y'all need a defense attorney, even for traffic court. :D :wink: :D