If the glove doesn't fit...
The Trial of the Century. Celebrity in the dock. A sharply divided country firm in its own belief of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Thirty years ago, Americans were riveted to their screens soaking in the saga of Orenthal James Simpson — first on a freeway, eventually in a courtroom.
Fast forward to today and the next Trial of the Century (Part I) is about to begin. Different celebrity, different legal stakes.
Same credibility challenge for the legal system and the media that attempts to cover it.
There are obviously significant differences — Simpson was accused of murdering his wife and her friend. Trump is accused of paying hush money to a porn star in an effort to interfere with the 2016 election.
The former football player was 6-1, 212 pounds while the former president insists he’s 6-3, 215 pounds.
But both men have revealed weaknesses of a legal system where money and status affects how you are treated.
The Simpson trial also uncovered a fatal flaw in the media universe — one that’s only gotten worse with cable television, cell phones and social media that’s created a 24-7-365 news cycle.
A recap for those too young to remember: “The Juice” was a star running back turned TV pitch man who ran through airports to get a rental car to an actor, of sorts. Until his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found slashed outside her Los Angeles home.
The whereabouts of the allegedly despondent Simpson were initially unknown until he was found in a white Bronco being slowly driven down LA freeways — gun occasionally to his head — chased by a phalanx of police cruisers on the ground and television news helicopters in the air.
It was one of those moments where people remember where they were: in my case, bizarrely. at a now-defunct Washington, DC restaurant named Mrs. Simpson’s. NBC News chose to run the slow speed chase on the main screen, relegating an NBA Finals game to a tiny box.
The nonstop coverage was only a prelude to what was to come after Simpson was arrested and eventually put on trial. Where once television coverage was barred as a result of a spectacular Cleveland murder trial (eventually turned into The Fugitive TV series and movie), a Florida court case loosened the restrictions and led to the birth of Court TV.
The network attracted middling ratings until California v. Simpson debuted on November 9, 1994 for an 11-month run. Newspapers and magazines, still a force to be reckoned with, helped boost the number of credentialed reporters to more than 2,500.
There were oddities to be sure: the seemingly permanent house guest and the Akita named after him; a judge who popularized a skit on The Tonight Show; the free advertising for Bruno Magli shoes that did fit; and a bloody glove that did not.
In the now infamous words of Johnnie Cochran:
“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
Underlying the trial was an LA police force which had presided over the savage beating of an unarmed Black man in 1991 and a lead detective who helped spawn the shorthand phrase of the N-word.
So when the verdict came down America erupted. On both sides. A high-priced legal team help acquit a previously popular Black man — infuriating white people and thrilling people of color. It’s important to note Simpson was found “not guilty” rather than innocent and eventually found civilly liable for the deaths and ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages.
Which brings us back to the wealthy prominent white former President of the United States who insists there’s a two-tiered legal system out to get him. Except of course that he’s been able to spend millions (of donor money) to tie the court system up in knots to avoid facing a courtroom on four separate criminal trials totaling 88 indictments.
That same wealthy white man who was able to talk down the size of a bond to appeal a $454 million civil fraud penalty, then miraculously come up with someone willing to help him finance it.
The Trump criminal fraud trial that starts with jury selection in Manhattan Monday will not be televised. That will limit the reach of the gag-ordered defendant to engage in courtroom disruptions. If Trump scowls in a camera-less courtroom will anyone see it?
But that doesn’t mean there will not be thousands of reporters, photographers, bloggers, videographers and “citizen journalists” attempting to describe those antics.
Social media, including the hell site formerly known as Twitter and Trump’s own Twitter clone will be able to spew misinformation and disinformation (can we shorthand that to lies?) And let’s not ignore Fox “News,” which did not exist when Simpson was on trial.
But what of the “legacy media,” that will no doubt be stationed outside the courtroom or over at Trump’s 40 Wall Street to hear what he has to say. Will they take those screeds live? On 3- or 7-second delay to enable them to try to fact check in semi-real time?
What will the analysts and commentators offer? There are some complex legal theories at work in the prosecutors’ case and star witness Michael Cohen is not as pure as the driven snow.
Will those issues be reported in a, pardon the expression, fair and balanced way? Or, as we’ve seen in the past, will the media succumb to sensational surroundings and fail the American public who have a right to know whether their president is a crook?