This story is free to read because readers choose to support LAist. If you find value in independent local reporting, make a donation to power our newsroom today.
This archival content was originally written for and published on KPCC.org. Keep in mind that links and images may no longer work — and references may be outdated.
Looking back at the verdict in the OJ Simpson trial
Lead defense attorney Johnnie Cochran (R) puts his arm on O.J. Simpson's (C) shoulder after Simpson told Judge Lance Ito Sept. 22, 1995 in Los Angeles that he has faith that jurors would acquit him of the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman. At left is defense attorney Robert Blasier (L).
(
Read Saxon/AFP/Getty Images
)
Listen
1:05
Looking back at the verdict in the OJ Simpson trial
Looking back at the verdict in the OJ Simpson trial
A high-profile criminal trial generated live TV coverage and intense interest far beyond its jurisdiction. We’re not talking about the continuing case of Dr. Conrad Murray, the personal physician to pop star Michael Jackson - here's a looks back to similarly notorious legal proceedings that wrapped up on this day in 1995.
Perhaps you remember where you were when it happened. People made a point of hovering near their TVs and radios when a Los Angeles Superior Court jury indicated that it would announce its verdict in the murder trial of former football star O.J. Simpson.
If the trial of the LAPD officers who beat Rodney King ushered in the age of videotaped evidence, the Simpson trial helped to amplify the trend of true courtroom drama as national obsession. So much so that news organizations stationed reporters and camera crews at locations where representative groups had gathered to tune in for what turned out to be a verdict of “not guilty.”
The lurid facts — a beautiful divorced woman and her male friend stabbed to death, an ex-husband who was an actor, athlete and pitchman as the prime suspect — drew even casual observers into speculation about the nature of American justice, race and gender relations — issues that continue to provoke fascination and debate 16 years later.
You come to LAist because you want independent reporting and trustworthy local information. Our newsroom doesn’t answer to shareholders looking to turn a profit. Instead, we answer to you and our connected community. We are free to tell the full truth, to hold power to account without fear or favor, and to follow facts wherever they lead. Our only loyalty is to our audiences and our mission: to inform, engage, and strengthen our community.
Right now, LAist has lost $1.7M in annual funding due to Congress clawing back money already approved. The support we receive from readers like you will determine how fully our newsroom can continue informing, serving, and strengthening Southern California.
If this story helped you today, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.
Your tax-deductible donation keeps LAist independent and accessible to everyone.
Right now, LAist has lost $1.7M in annual funding due to Congress clawing back money already approved. The support we receive from readers like you will determine how fully our newsroom can continue informing, serving, and strengthening Southern California.
If this story helped you today, please become a monthly member today to help sustain this mission. It just takes 1 minute to donate below.
Your tax-deductible donation keeps LAist independent and accessible to everyone.
Senior Vice President News, Editor in Chief
