Total_Package27 asks: What is it like to defend someone who, in the eyes of the public, is guilty?
Alan Dershowitz: That's my job. If the public ever believed somebody to be innocent, I probably wouldn't take the case. A good lawyer should want to take the hardest cases, the most unpopular defendants, and the least likely to succeed. Just as a good surgeon would more likely take a difficult operation, rather than a nose job. Statistically, most of my clients are guilty. Statistically, most people charged with crimes in America, are guilty. And thank God for that. Would we want to live in a country where most people charged are innocent? That might be true in Libya, or China, but not here.

Total_Package27 asks: Do you think OJ was guilty?
Alan Dershowitz: The code of Professional Responsibility precludes a lawyer from stating his opinions about the guilt or innocence of a client. I probably know no more about the facts of the case than most observers. I can say this: had I been on the jury in the civil case, based on the evidence submitted in that case, I probably would have voted the way the jury voted.

Total_Package27 asks: How can someone be found innocent in a criminal trial and then be found guilty in a civil trial?
Alan Dershowitz: Simpson was neither found innocent in the criminal trial nor was he found guilty in the civil trial. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent. Several jurors -- both white and black -- believed that he probably did it but that the police planted evidence against him and lied. And they were unwilling to convict on the basis of perjurious and tampered evidence.
In the civil case, he was found "liable," which is a very different standard from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the two verdicts are perfectly reconcilable. We may find a similar result in the Louima case. The defendants who were acquitted in the criminal case may well be found liable in a civil case.

etmom6 asks: What is you opinion of DNA evidence?
Alan Dershowitz: I am a very strong believer in DNA evidence. I think it's a major breakthrough in the search for truth and in the scientific efforts to establish facts. But the DNA can be no better than the methods used to gather it and evaluate it.
If blood was taken from Simpson's blood reference tubes and planted on a sock, as I believe it was, the fact that it contained Simpson's DNA doesn't prove very much. The fact that it contains a chemical EDTA not found in the human body, but found in test tubes used to preserve blood, is far more significant.

jobattelepath asks: How long after Simpson was found innocent will it be before he is actually considered "innocent"? Personally, I think he did it, but he had his day in court and won. Isn't that how the American justice system works?
Alan Dershowitz: No. Every citizen has the right to make up their minds as to whether they think he did it or didn't do it. The verdict of history is very different from the verdict of two juries. He can't ever go to jail on this accusation, but everybody has the right to make his or her own decision.

sanddman1999 asks: How do you think the judge handled the case?
Alan Dershowitz: As a teacher, I would give him about a B. There were times when he was too conscious of the media. He lacked courage on occasions. The vast majority of his rulings favored the prosecution.
It was, in my view, a mistake to assign the case to a young judge with further electoral ambitions. This was a perfect case for a wise old judge with no political ambitions. Having said that, I think any elected judge would have had a problem in this case, since the public had such strong views. This case is a poster child for why we should never have elected judges or prosecutors in this country. The main issue on the mind of both Judge Ito and prosecutor Garcetti was its effect on their re-elections, and elections should never influence justice.

mlup666395 asks: Dear Mr. Dershowitz, I realize that a good defense attorney's job is to defend his client but what made you take the OJ case and if he had been a poor black from a different neighborhood would you have taken the case and would you have believed in the innocence of your client?
Alan Dershowitz: Believing in the innocence of my client is not a relevant factor in deciding which cases to take. Neither is the wealth of the client. I take more pro bono cases than any other lawyer in private practice in the US. Over my career, more than half my cases have been pro bono. And I have represented numerous African-Americans from poor neighborhoods and will continue to do so.
The reason I took the Simpson case is that he was facing the death penalty at the time I was asked. I certainly didn't take it for the money. I lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by taking the Simpson case. It's significant that when people don't like my clients, they always assume I did it for the money. When they like my clients, they always assume I did it for principle.

greggrt asks: Do you think the result would have been different if Vincent Bugliosi would have prosecuted? Why or why not?
Alan Dershowitz: I think the result might have been different if any competent prosecutor had prosecuted this case. In thirty five years of practicing law, I never encountered two more incompetent bunglers than Clark and Darden. They blew the case at every stage. From jury selection to theory of the case, the length of the presentation, to their unprofessional demeanor in court.
Do you know that Marsha Clark has admitted that she whispered to a lawyer in the case as he was about to make a legal argument: "I want you to remember I'm not wearing any underwear."
And that was one of her better moments.
The amazing thing is that she benefited and profited enormously from her incompetence because people believed she was on the right side. I believe that had she been in private practice, she would have moved mountains to try to defend Simpson, though I'm sure she'll now deny that, because no one would ever hire her to defend him. That's the way she is, that's why she does television.

bridge_walker asks: Do you think cameras in the court get in the way of a fair/expeditious trial?
Alan Dershowitz: On balance, cameras in the courtroom are better than trials covered only by newspapers. A newspaper reporter presents the case through the prism of their own writing. Television allows the viewers to make up their own minds.

etmom6 asks: Mr. Dershowitz are you still in contact with OJ? Is he doing anything to solve this case?
Alan Dershowitz: No, I'm not.
If the alleged murderer is on the golf course, he's doing a great job. But I've not seen or heard of much else that he's doing. He is, I'm told, devoting a good deal of time to trying to raise his children. And he is, I'm told, doing a very good job in that respect.
Back to the question of solving the crime, on a serious note, it would be very difficult to find the actual killer, if there were an actual killer other than the defendant. But it was done in the Dr. Sheppard case. So anything's possible.

dollsteak1970 asks: Mr. Dershowitz: What exactly do you consider the unfinished business of the OJ Simpson trial? Thank you.
Alan Dershowitz: I think the major unfinished business is to try to improve race relations in America, to break down the blue wall of silence among the police, and to expose the kind of police perjury that permeated the Simpson case.

_LYSISTRATA_99 asks: Do you think the LAPD is racist?
Alan Dershowitz: I think there was a great degree of toleration of racism among individual policemen, like Fuhrman, by Chief Gates. One cannot characterize an entire department but there are too many racists in the LAPD, just as there are in the NYPD or the Boston PD.
But there are improvements. Fuhrman's resignation alone was a significant improvement. But it's amazing how many people still admire Fuhrman, despite his racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, admiration for Hitler, anti-Hispanic attitudes, and bigotry and advocacy of violence -- and perjury -- and evidence planting as legitimate police tools.

foxykel asks: What impact, if any, did the verdict in the Simpson case have on the legal system?
Alan Dershowitz: Probably a negative impact among most relatively uninformed people. Among informed people, it was just another controversial verdict among many.
What shocks me is how much more upset most Americans seem to get when they believe that a guilty person has been acquitted than when they learn an innocent person has been convicted and even sentenced to death. Many Americans seem to believe that it is better for ten innocent people to be convicted than for even one guilty person to go free. And when that guilty person -- guilty in the minds of these people -- is an African-American, it seems to even be worse.

TomCatMeow36 asks: Do you think every criminal trial should have an appellate specialist?
Alan Dershowitz: Yes, in cases where appellate specialists work with the trial lawyers, the defendant has a far better chance of being acquitted. Both at the trial level and on appeal.

LonelyWifeAndNeedy asks: Mr. D., I am a lawyer in Austin ,Texas and I wonder what you think of the movie re: you?
Alan Dershowitz: I think you're referring to Reversal of Fortune, the movie about the Von Bulow case, which I think was a very accurate portrayal of the legal issues in that case, and its complexity. Of course, no one ever likes the way they are personally portrayed, though I can't complain because Ron Silver is a lot better looking than I am, though I am a better basketball player.

PStemme asks: Do you really think that the OJ trial was about race or more about OJ's being a celebrity?
Alan Dershowitz: I think it was about a lot of things. It certainly was about race for many Americans. But were the defendant not a celebrity, the racial issues would not have surfaced.
It was also about money. Simpson was the rare defendant who could afford to challenge the prosecution's evidence and put on a powerful defense. And many Americans were outraged by his ability to defend himself.

dollsteak1970 asks: Mr. Dershowitz: Are there still hard feelings between Robert Shapiro and the rest of the defense team?
Alan Dershowitz: There are. I think we all feel that Bob, who I like and who I have remained friendly with, made a mistake when he accused Cochran of having dealt the race card from the bottom of the deck. The race card was dealt by the prosecution, when THEY selected a predominantly black jury. The prosecution also tried to play the gender card, by trying this case as a spousal abuse case. It backfired, on the prosecution. But Bob Shapiro is a great lawyer, despite that one mistake.

CrazySean_2000 asks: Alan, who is the next strongest suspect in the defense's minds?
Alan Dershowitz: The defense has no obligation to come up with a suspect. It's job is to challenge the prosecution's case. And we did that quite effectively. But the prosecution did an even better job in self-destructing. They might have lost even if there had been no defense. But we helped a little.

AAArocker asks: Please comment on jury nullification!
Alan Dershowitz: I don't like jury nullification. It was used by white jurors in the South to acquit racist killers of civil rights workers. It is generally lawless: and poses substantial dangers to democracy. But it occurs, on both sides. In this case, I think the jury took very seriously it's obligation to decide whether the perjury and evidence planting by the police raised a reasonable doubt.

TomCatMeow36 asks: What issues do you think were appealable from the trial?
ctv_will: And how concerned were you that you would lose the criminal case and need to appeal?
Alan Dershowitz: I was concerned that we were going to lose though most of the trial. And I also believe that we probably would have lost the appeal had there been a conviction, even though there were terrific appellate issues in the case. I find it difficult to imagine an elected appellate court reversing a popular verdict of conviction in the Simpson case, but I would have worked hard to achieve that result had there been a conviction. I think we would have had a better chance on federal habeas corpus. People don't realize that fewer than 2 percent of criminal convictions are reversed on appeal, in most states.

kurkus asks: Seems that Simpson is going on with his life as if nothing has happened. How do you feel about his interview in England in which he pretended to stab the host. Also, a more important question is, are his children safe with him?
Alan Dershowitz: I never felt threatened with him. He was behind glass barriers most of the time I met him. I think his children are safe with him.
I was offended by his interview in England. I was also offended by his stupid comments regarding Jews and blacks. I think he should remain out of the media, and take care of his children.

etmom6 asks: what is your answer to the statement "Money can buy you justice" or you can get away with murder if you have enough money?
Alan Dershowitz: It's false. No amount of money can guarantee an acquittal -- ask Mike Tyson and Leona Helmsley.
But without money, there is an almost certain likelihood of conviction. I have been fighting against this system for 40 years, especially in death penalty cases, where the lack of money has resulted in execution and near-execution of innocent people. The answer to this problem is not to deprive wealthy people of the right to defend themselves, but to provide resources to poor people to obtain scientific, forensic and other means of challenging the prosecution.
For most Americans, money and the justice system is a phony issue. They don't care about poor people who lack money for defense, they only complain about rich people who have money for a defense. The same problem exists in medicine, education, pre-natal care, in decent housing -- and we ought to address it by leveling the playing field.

PStemme asks: Do you think more should be done about jury selection and the whole process?
Alan Dershowitz: Yes. We must reform jury selection. Jury service should be made mandatory, universal -- no excuses, no exceptions. There should be fewer peremptory challenges and less manipulation of the jury pool by both sides.

JRockmo asks: If the bloody glove found at the Rockingham estate was planted where did Fuhrman get it from in the first place?
Alan Dershowitz: There are two issues -- whether the glove was planted and whether or not blood was planted on the glove. I do not put anything beyond Furhrman. Recall that when he found the glove it was moist and there was no dew or humidity that night. He could easily have picked the glove up outside of the crime scene, where he was alone for half an hour, put it in a plastic baggie, which would have kept it moist, and then planted when he was alone at the back of the house. Several jurors, after hearing all the evidence, concluded that that was a realistic possibility.
The bloodstained sock was even more suspicious, especially since the blood on it found levels of EDTA not found in the human body but found in levels used to preserve blood in police labs. In my book, Reasonable Doubts, I have an extensive discussion of both the glove and the sock and the forensic evidence.

enigmatic_hunkie asks: Do you think it is unhealthy that Americans are so obsessed with this case when there is so much else going on in the world that needs people's attention?
Alan Dershowitz: Yes. But I'm not surprised when national magazines list Princess Diana and Marilyn Monroe as the most significant people of the century. Why should we be surprised when an American celebrity is accused of murder.
But the Simpson case will not be remembered in the next century. It will not rank as one of the trials of the century. It will not rank with the Nuremberg trials, the Rosenberg trial, Sacco and Vanzetti. It is on par with Leopold and Loeb and the Lindbergh case, all involving celebrities.
It is also not one of the most important cases of my own career. I would rank it somewhere in the middle in terms of interest and importance.

ctv_will: I know you have appointments to keep now. I thank you very much for taking this time out to talk with us!!

WRITE TO US