O.J. Simpson Trials: 1995 & 1996-97

Summations began on September 26. Prosecutor Clark took the Fuhrman bull by the horns: "Is he a racist? Yes. But it would be a tragedy if you found the defendant not guilty because of the racist attitude of one police officer."

Clark reviewed the timing of the thumps on Kaelin's wall; the absurdity of defense contentions that blood had been planted; the trail of blood down the Bundy walkway, into the Bronco, and into the Rockingham house; and the DNA evidence that made Simpson "one in 57 billion people that could have left that blood."

Defense counsel Cochran summed up. Referring to the defendant's attempt to put on the glove, he repeatedly said, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." He suggested that professional killers were the murderers. He lambasted the "untrained officers" who "traipsed through the evidence." He reminded the jury that the defendant "doesn't have to prove anything." Finally, he compared Fuhrman's racist attitude to Hitler's and advised the jurors that in acquitting Simpson they would become custodians of the Constitution.

Prosecutor Darden told the jury, "I looked in the Constitution, and you know what I saw? The Constitution said Ron and Nicole had the right to liberty, the right to life, the right to the pursuit of happiness. And I looked further to see if it said anything about O.J. Simpson. And it said that a man has no right to kill and get away with it because one of the investigating officers is a racist."

"Ron and Nicole—they're speaking to you," impassioned prosecutor Clark to the jury. "They are both telling you who did it, with their hair, their clothes, their bodies, their blood. They tell you in the only way they can."

It was Friday afternoon, September 29, 1995. Judge Ito briefly charged the jury. They retired to elect their foreman. Deliberations began at 10:00 A.M. on Monday. Less than four hours later, they reached a verdict. Ito said he would announce it the next morning.