Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
In Defense of the Innocent with Barry Scheck - Legally Speaking
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2014
- (Visit: www.uctv.tv) Over the last two decades no criminal defense lawyer in America has had a more profound impact on advancing the rights of the convicted than has Barry Scheck. In 1992, when DNA testing was still in its infancy, Scheck, along with his colleague Peter Neufeld, founded The Innocence Project, which has since figured prominently in the release of hundreds of prison inmates. Scheck also achieved lasting fame for defending O.J. Simpson when the former football star was charged with murder. Scheck spoke with California Lawyer contributing editor Martin Lasden about his extraordinary career and the controversies surrounding it. Series: "Legally Speaking" [9/2014] [Public Affairs] [Humanities] [Show ID: 28615]
Scheck deserves a Nobel Prize.Put simply, he is a lawyer's lawyer.
Scheck is a rotten liar. Read about how he lied during OJ Simpson's trial.
Helping OJ get away with murder was one of his wonderful acts
@@ronthompson95 ...one of his wonderful *_stunts_* .
@@ronthompson95 can't help the
brainless think
this guy along with peter neufeld are heroes
Yes he awesome
Agree 💯 % they are marvelous in the work they do. Too many INNOCENT PEOPLE in prison. Especially the Death Row prisoners. Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. I agree Barry John Grisham books are wonderful person and writer The Innocent Man is his only non fiction book. Everyone should read it. I’ve read all his books marvelous.
Barry the G.O.A.T!!!
Barry
I have closely been following you since OJ, and so very proud of your career always helping justice thrive. You aged good dude. That trial was filled with open racism.
A 5-year-old can understand one glove in the crime scene and the other in the killer's house, too good to believe!
the second glove was found outside OJ's home, not inside
@@Jukeboxsteryeah because they couldn’t get inside until his daughter let them in. Plus furhman had to be alone so nobody could see him plant it.
How bout that Mr FUNG
🤣
The timelines alone were enough to exonerate OJ
@Daring Goldman: One/tenth of the evidence OJ left behind would have been enough to convict him.
No. The dumb jury, dumb cops and history of black and white relations especially with LAPD was what lead to not guilty.
Exactly
Ask the Goldmans and Nicole's family what they think of him and the "dream team". He had to know that trial was going to be a circus. O.J.was never going to be convicted.
Right! OJ was never going to be convicted with all that reasonable doubt evidence they presented against him!
Got me laughing in lapd mark furman
Cochran was slick, but scheck was the best lawyer of all who were involved. He's the type of person who could talk circles around anyone even if he was wrong.
His argumentation was manifestly poor but due to a poor prosecution team, he managed to dupe the jury (who admittedly couldn't follow the DNA evidence).
The problem is that Barry Scheck will not allow anyone else to talk. With him, it is a one sided converstion. The interview of Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld with Charlie Rose proved what kind of person he is. Scheck kept interrupting Charlie Rose. Charlie Rose tried to be objective about the murders but Scheck did not want the viewers of the interview to hear what Charlie Rose had to say.
It's strange how all the players have aged so much in 25 years. Marcia Clark is unrecognizable to me and OJ himself looks really bad, but he IS almost 70 now...
I Really cant believe that This trial was over 20 years ago. Also some people have passed on Johniee Cochrin, Phillip Vanatter, Dr. Fredrich Reiders, Robert Kardashian are now gone
Yeah they have all aged a lot in 25 years… except Marcia Clark who preserved some of her youth thru plastic surgery!!
You have to remember some of them were already in their mid 40s back then....
The irony. Gets famous for defending a guilty man and then has an innocence project
Who Found him guilty ??
White Media. Not scientific proves.
They only help guilty people, look into it.
Sloppily handling evidence even contaminating it does not cause the evidence to change to become a match to the no. 1 suspect.. Worse case it would have not matched the suspect. This guy played the jury for the fools they were!
Read Hank Goldberg's book for the truth of the Simpson trial
Precisely.
How was he involved in the trial?
An Ambulance chaser.
He has done much good but he will never redeem his reputation without affirming OJ Simpson’s guilt and admitting his role in obfuscating the evidence that led to acquittal. He intellectual arguments defending his actions are disingenuous at best.
The Disingenuous Party.
Reporter or rival candidate: Did you . . . ?
Disingenuous Party Candidate or Barry Scheck: Let me say this: na-na-na-na-nah, na-na-na-nah, na-na-nah, na-na-nah. (Blithering -- unrelated to question.)
OJ Simpson Trial Juror: "Jury foreman Amanda Cooley said that she had no explanation for that incriminating evidence and stated that it did not factor into her decision of reasonable doubt."
That's why you were there!
The whole quote is actually:
Geraldo Rivera asked several jurors what their reasonable doubt was concerning the blood drops found next to the bloody footprints near the victims that were photographed hours prior to Simpson's blood being drawn. Those samples were sent to Cellmark for testing, not the LAPD, and were shown to be Simpson's blood with chances of error being 1-in-9.7 billion. In response, juror Carrie Bess said that she thinks the blood belonged to Simpson's children; juror Marsha Rubin-Jackson said that she thinks Simpson's blood was left there next to the bloody footprints prior to the murders happening; and jury foreman Amanda Cooley said that she had no explanation for that incriminating evidence and stated that it did not factor into her decision of reasonable doubt.
If only this interview could have been delayed until 2016 when OJ juror Carrie Bess confessed as follows (source: The Wrap, CZcams):
Interviewer: Do you think there are members of the jury that voted to acquit OJ because of Rodney King?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: You do?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: How many of you do you think felt that way?
Bess: Oh, probably 90 percent of them.
Interviewer: 90 percent. Did you feel that way?
Bess: Yes.
Interviewer: That was payback.
Bess: Uh-huh.
Interviewer: Do you think that’s right?
At that question, she holds up her hands.
Thats her opinion on what she thinks. I wont believe 90%until i hear them say it from their mouth. They still got the correct verdict to me anyways. But one person opinion and viewpoint doesn't mean nothing until all 12 jurors say this
@@papasul29 Absolutely!! They definitely got the verdict right!
Barry scheck is beyond amazing
To my critics: if the verdict is correct, then explain the following article from the Washington Post:
*Two decades later, black and white Americans finally agree on O.J. Simpson’s guilt*
By Janell Ross
March 4, 2016 at 12:26 p.m. EST
Even OJ's lawyer Carl Douglas said the convergence will continue.
This would be impressive if we didnt watch the trial. They came to the correct verdict. The timelines exonerated OJ. He had no time to committ the murders and get rid of all the blood and weapons and look presentable for the limo driver. Thats not it. He also was visible in public at the airport airplane and the hotel in chicago immediately after the murders and not one person who saw him said his demeanor was friendly, he signed everyones autographs and there was no blood on him or any cuts on his finger
This guy is no hero. RiP Nicole and Ron
They never looked into solving who did it. No investigation
DNA should only be used to convict. Never to be used to prove innocence. If a suspects DNA is not found on the victim or the crime scene, then he was involved in the crime in some other way and is just a guilty as the main perpurtraito.
Can you please elaborate?
Where was ojs dna found at the crime scene?
Dude Sheck destroyed that Chinese guy mr FUNG