Squeezing O.J. - Will Round II Get the Juice?

by Katherine Scardino

I am not sure whether I want to write something about O.J. Simpson. After the criminal trial in 1994, we all probably said something to the effect of "I hope I never hear this man's name again for the rest of my life."

I know there were people who watched every minute of that murder trial in California over a decade ago—you know, the one that lasted almost a year! And with an equally startling verdict.

During that trial, I remember being called by a member of the press in Houston, Texas, where I live, and asked to basically "guess" what the jury was going to do.

This phone call came during jury deliberations and—in all fairness to the newspaper reporter—he was thinking that because I had been practicing criminal law in Houston for a while, and had tried more than a few criminal cases, I might have some insight or clue as to what the jury would do.

Well, in my most J.D.-educated tone, I told him I thought that surely this jury would find Mr. Simpson guilty of murdering his wife and Mr. Goldman.

I had watched enough of the trial to feel that he was guilty. But I also recognized that Barry Scheck, Johnny Cochran, and the other members of his defense team did a fantastic job of "smoke and mirrors" and that the two prosecutors were totally outclassed and outlawyered by that so-called Dream Team. That is not supposed to matter . . . but in the glare of that circus, it was obvious.

All the same, I still felt that the State had put on enough evidence for the jury to legitimately find this man guilty.

Now we are in the midst of criminal trial number two for O.J. Simpson. This one is a crummy sequel to the first case. He is currently on trial in Las Vegas, Nevada for armed robbery and kidnapping. I have been following the newspaper about as much as you probably have—and with about as much interest.

Then I started thinking, which is a dangerous thing for me to do . . . but here are my thoughts. First, don't be mislead by the fact that he is accused of "armed robbery." He is not being charged with robbing these people of the property that he maintains was his.

No, O.J. Simpson is being tried for robbery because when he and his cohorts stormed into that hotel room, he snatched a cell phone, hat, and sunglasses (which probably actually fell off the man's face) from one of the people in the room.

Second, the "kidnapping" charge arose from a statement Simpson made on the eight-minute audiotape of this incident: "No one leaves. Do not let anyone leave this room." So that is the kidnapping part of his felony charge that could mean a life sentence for O.J.

Then, as if this is not enough, in the opening statement by the prosecutor, he told the jury to let this be the "true verdict."

Of course, the judge had instructed the jury that the California criminal trial was not to have any impact on their consideration of the facts in this case. Right! And, the prosecution was not to mention that trial. So, this prosecutor simply implied to the jury that regardless of the verdict in California, this verdict should be the "true verdict."

And he also mentioned in his opening statement that the jury will hear the "true O.J. Simpson" as opposed to O.J.'s public persona.

While not mentioning the murder trial, he alluded to it in the words he chose to use in front of this Las Vegas jury.

So where is this going? I am tending to believe more and more that this is a set up by O. J.'s alleged "friends." Otherwise, why the full audiotape of this entire incident?

And we have to remember, that "rant" of O.J. Simpson may just be that. He is not being charged with using profane language or with losing his temper because he wanted his "s----" back.

There is always the possibility of a jury finding him guilty because of his history, the language he used, the anger he exhibited, the fact that many people around the world, not just the United States, believe that O.J. is guilty of murder and got away with it.

And this trial may be the last chance a wrong can be made right.

O.J. Simpson might get life in prison for knocking a man's sunglasses and cap off his head, and by saying that no one could leave the room. (Lord, I hope we have not resorted to revenge verdicts.)

Let's keep watching. I'll write more as the case progresses. . . .

Tweet

The Teenage Brain (Or Lack Thereof)

by Donna Pendergast

As every parent of a teenager knows, the teenage brain is different from the adult brain. All jokes aside, some of these differences have neurobiological and neuropsychological underpinnings. Although the adolescent brain is fully grown in size it is a long way from mature. Along with everything else in the body the brain changes significantly in adolescence.

According to recent studies and neuroimaging research the prefrontal cortex of the human brain, which controls planning, emotion, impulse control, and the ability to assess future consequences, is not fully developed until one is in their early- to mid-twenties. This research confirms that the distinction between teenagers and adults is more than one of age. It is one of physiological maturation.

Is an immature brain an excuse for committing a crime? The hot-button issue in juvenile criminal justice today is how to deal with the physical reality of brain development while demanding accountability for crimes committed by teens.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BRAIN

A key difference between adolescent and adult brains concerns the frontal lobe. During maturation, the human brain develops from front to back. The largest part of the brain, the frontal lobes, are in the front part of the cerebrum, the most sophisticated area of the brain. The size of the frontal lobes does not change significantly during the adolescent years but there are dramatic changes in their composition. A small area of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal cortices, are the last areas of the brain to evolve during the development process.

The adolescent brain truly is a work in progress. Two processes are taking place at a rapid rate: pruning, the process by which unnecessary nerve synapses (gray matter) in the frontal lobe are eliminated) as well as myelination, involving white matter that envelops connections to stabilize them. This conversion of gray to white matter is critical to making the brain's operation more efficient and developing the neural networks regulating behavior. The frontal lobes regulate the amygdala, the brain's emotional center, which controls anger, fear, recklessness, and gut responses.

A fully developed prefrontal cortex helps adults predict the consequences of their actions. In adolescents, the less developed prefrontal cortex affects the adolescent's ability for mental reasoning, decision-making, and assessment of consequences.

WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE

What are the implications of adolescent brain development on the juvenile justice system? Because their brains are not fully mature, teens have a more limited capacity to self-regulate their impulses. Teens do not handle social pressure and other stresses the way adults do. However, despite brain immaturity, the fact remains that the vast majority of teens do not commit Columbine-type massacres and other forms of violent crime.

Is the greater question what is wrong with our country that we have such a pervasive problem with violent juvenile crime? Other developed countries do not have anywhere near our violent juvenile crime rate.

It's easy to know what to do with a teen such as Jean Pierre Orliewcz. Orliewcz (pictured right) was recently tried in the Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit for stabbing to death an acquaintance and then telling him "just let it take over" as his victim lay dying in a pool of blood on a garage floor. Orliewcz then beheaded his victim and used a blow torch in an attempt to obliterate the victim's fingerprints and further conceal his identity. He later told authorities that he was "excited" by the idea of killing someone and getting away with it. At his sentencing last month, the judge told Orlewicz "There is a difference between mental illness and evil. You are tantamount to evil."

Clearly we cannot allow juveniles to be exonerated from any consequences for their criminal actions. An immature brain should not entitle juvenile offenders to a "get out of jail free card." Teenagers who demonstrate a vicious and callous disregard for human life must not be allowed to blame their actions on an undeveloped brain and walk away from their crime. But what about the criminal cases that are less clear-cut and do not involve the taking of a human life?

Neuroimaging research alone cannot determine an adolescent's criminal responsibility. Imaging is not diagnostic and you cannot do a scan to settle moral and legal questions. The big issue is: How do we balance necessary deterrence and the need to protect society with the best practices that encourage rehabilitation of a juvenile offender? There are no easy answers.

Statements made in this post are my own and not intended to reflect the views, opinions, or position of the Michigan Attorney General or the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Tweet