Let’s do the Time Warp Again; O.J. Back in Court

By Anastacia Mott Austin

Where were you in 1994? More specifically, where were you on Friday, June 17th, 1994 when television news crews stopped everything and ran nonstop live coverage of the infamous white Bronco chase?

I was at my dad’s house in San Diego, mad at my stepmother because she wouldn’t let me use her truck, and bored enough to turn on the television. It’s sad, because I do remember exactly where I was sitting, the color of the walls in the room where I was, even the day of the week.

And now, open the pages of your morning newspaper and there he is: O.J. Simpson, sitting in a courtroom looking bored. I’d have thought they used the original court photos from 1994, except that the Juice just doesn’t look that young anymore.

Yet even though it was fourteen years ago – yes it was! – I looked at those photos and thought, "Ugh, not more of O.J. in the courtroom!" Because at the time, I wished to never see another moment of what I thought was the stupidest court case ever tried.

So much for journalistic objectivity, but there you have it.

This time around, O.J., now 61, is facing charges that he, along with his co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart, 54, stole sports memorabilia from two dealers in a hotel room in Las Vegas a year ago. The charges they face include armed robbery and kidnapping, among others.

The lawyers trying the case are having a difficult time finding jurors to serve. This does not surprise me. First of all, that whole "jury of your peers" idea: where would they find 12 cocky has-been sports stars acquitted of murder after the celebrity/media circus of the century? Or more simply, 12 people who could have an objective opinion of the man?

One prospective juror lectured Mr. Simpson on his behavior as a celebrity and then told the lawyers, "I felt he got away with murder." In case they didn’t understand her, she repeated, "I think he was guilty the first time." She was dismissed.

By law, 40 prospective jurors must pass the process known as "voir dire," before their numbers are further reduced by lawyers on both sides of the case. The final number will be whittled to 12 jurors and six alternates.

Of Simpson’s five original co-defendants, four have agreed to plea deals in order to testify against him. However, they have criminal backgrounds that could damage their testimonies.

Of course, if its primary defendant was not a person famous for his last trial, nobody would be paying attention to this case.

But our proud nation has the spectacle of Simpson’s 1994 case to add to its "Where were you when…" moments, and I hang my head in shame to say that I remember exactly where I was.

I’m not alone. Fellow wanderers of the blogosphere have shared their shame as well.

As one sad blogger wrote, "My parents [remembered] where they were when Kennedy was shot, and all I got to remember is this dumb slow speed car chase that I didn’t even get to watch."

Actually, he should not feel that embarrassed. Some of us actually did watch it.